My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-14-1992 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
09-14-1992 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2019 3:42:41 PM
Creation date
4/29/2019 3:42:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE. #1748 - CONT. <br />Butler felt there were a couple of applications before them tonight <br />where the applicants were caught .between two groups of Planning <br />Commission members. She felt applicants that complied with the <br />directives of the Planning Commission should be recognized for <br />doing so. <br />It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to direct staff to <br />draft a resolution approving setback variances for Application <br />#1748 for Robert and Rita Hovland of 1245 North Arm Drive, <br />approving a 15' side setback from the north lot line and a 13' <br />setback from the south lot Fine. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />( #5) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, <br />3548 IVY PLACE - <br />VARIANCES <br />Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. <br />Mabusth explained this application was also reviewed at both the <br />July and August Planning Commission meetings. She noted the revised <br />proposal includes additional removal of 75 -250' hardcover at 172 <br />s.f., and the 663 s.f. roof structure originally proposed has been <br />reduced to 374 s.f. She noted the real issue for this proposal is <br />the lot coverage. Lot coverage was originally proposed at 24.5% <br />and has been reduced to 21.5 %. The Planning Commission recommended <br />approval based on lot coverage be held at 18 %, which would mean the <br />applicants would have to give up either the roof structure or the <br />family room addition. <br />Butler stated here is another situation where the applicants were <br />given directives from the Planning Commission and came back with <br />a proposal and were denied. <br />Goetten felt that does not mean that the vote should have been <br />changed. <br />Jabbour agreed with Butler. He expressed concern about residents <br />exerting energy and money on revised plans and the City does not <br />act in good faith. <br />Goetten stated the lot is small and has excessive amounts of <br />hardcover. She asked the applicants if there were any other areas <br />where they could reduce hardcover. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.