My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-09-1995 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
10-09-1995 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 9:51:33 AM
Creation date
4/25/2019 9:51:32 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MIlVUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 1995 <br />( #13 - 42073 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) <br />• <br />The representative noted that there was no problem with removal of the wood retaining <br />walls on the back side but was concerned with the area where the brick pavers are <br />located. He believed once the top timbers are gone, the dirt would be disturbed and <br />would lose some soil. He was concerned with getting the patio block back into the same <br />place. He noted that the front entry addition would eliminate water pouring into the <br />basement. <br />Gaffron said the applicant, in a letter received on October 4, asked if no screened porch <br />was approved, if they could place a sunroom over the existing deck on the south end. <br />Gaffron said part of the problem was that the deck was located 6 -T from the side lot line <br />where 10' is required. It also is in the 0 -75' zone and would add to the bulk of structure <br />on the property. There would be no change in the hardcover. The deck is currently 34' <br />above grade with a railing. <br />Hurr asked if there was any condition to when the original deck was built that it not be <br />screened in. Gaffron said he was not aware of any. Goetten asked if this was to be part <br />of this proposal. Gaffron said it was an addition to it. <br />Jabbour asked if the project was to be done in the spring. The representative said the <br />applicant would like to complete the front entry this fall. <br />• It was noted that the property has a 3 -car garage. <br />Kelley moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3619 per the Planning <br />Commission recommendation but allowing the wood retaining wall to be left in replace in <br />area designated. <br />It was noted that there was also a survey requirement in Staff s recommendation. <br />Jabbour said he was concerned with where the wood retaining walls would remain. <br />Kelley said he was in favor of the walls partially remaining if it met with the Engineer's <br />approval. <br />Condition 1 on page 4, exhibit A, stipulates where the wood retaining walls would <br />remain. <br />The representative confirmed that hostas and other greenery could be used in the areas <br />where rock is eliminated. <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />• <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.