My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
11-20-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2018 8:40:00 AM
Creation date
2/9/2018 8:39:03 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
273
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 16,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Although they are gaining a significant amount of lot area,the property owners are proposing an addition <br /> which will triple the size of the home on the property,adding more structure and hardcover within the <br /> already burdened average setback and lake setback areas. They are proposing the connection in the most <br /> inconspicuous place possible,which will also avoid impact impacting the existing generator and <br /> mechanicals on the side of the home. However,the existing conditions do not necessarily constitute a <br /> practical difficulty supporting the variances. <br /> In addition,the necessity for the work proposed within the 75-foot setback area to install retaining walls <br /> and create a driving path for ATVs and lawn maintenance vehicles is partially self-created. The tree <br /> removal on the lake slope and the grading were done without City permits. The applicant was directed to <br /> provide a detailed restoration plan,some of which may be addressed on the landscape plan. However,the <br /> proposed lakeshore retaining walls are not supported by a practical difficulty in the opinion of Staff. <br /> As it regards 2710 Pence Lane,the applicants' preceding variance request results in a restriction of the <br /> buildable envelope for the new home on the property as it is getting quite a bit smaller. As currently <br /> configured,the property had ample opportunity for a new residence to meet the required average <br /> lakeshore setback. <br /> The applicant is proposing a new home on the newly created lot which will increase the mass of the <br /> structure on the property within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is also proposing to <br /> increase the mass on the east side,possibly further impacting the property owner to the east. The limited <br /> building area on the property after the lot line rearrangement results in the applicant creating existing <br /> conditions which do not necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances. <br /> In addition,the necessity for the work proposed within the 75-foot setback area to install retaining walls <br /> and create a driving path is partially self-created. The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were <br /> done without City oversight. The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan. <br /> The Planning Commission should open a public hearing to address each of the specific applications, <br /> receive comments from the public and review them as necessary. Three separate motions should be made <br /> regarding the three separate applications. <br /> The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff <br /> Sue Dunkley,Applicant,stated they have lived at 2709 Walters Port since 1984. The adjoining property <br /> was purchased recently and discussions have been had with the City since May regarding the proposals. <br /> Dunkley noted they received an email at 6:32 p.m. Friday night that raised the back lot issue,which had <br /> never had come up before. Dunkley stated they do not have a variance request submitted for that because <br /> they were not aware of it but that they have attached information regarding all the other variance requests. <br /> Dunkley indicated she did speak with Melanie about the back lot earlier in the day. <br /> Dunkley stated their house sits on .56 acres,with the house being built in the 1950s. Dunkley commented <br /> the house is very sandwiched on the lot and that they were very excited about being able to purchase the <br /> other lot and bring their lot more into compliance. <br /> Dunkley stated when they started having discussions with Staff in May,they knew there were lots of <br /> questions and issues that would need to be addressed. Dunkley stated they knew they would be able to <br /> Page 4 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.