My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-13-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
02-13-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 1:03:50 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 12:50:49 PM
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.
/
382
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 <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 17, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Daly indicated that would take some work and that he will need to know the actual square footage that equates to that <br />percent. Daly noted they are reducing the current hardcover. <br />(Commissioner Jan Berg recused herself from voting on this application) <br />Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. <br />Schoenzeit stated the applicants could probably eliminate the additional square feet of hardcover by building the attached <br />garage and sliding the building over slightly. Schoenzeit noted on a clean sheet design, the City would never allow this, <br />and the only reason why a hardcover variance is being considered is because it is existing. <br />Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission can make a recommendation that if the existing garage ends up being torn <br />down that the applicants will have to build a structure more in compliance. <br />Lemke stated his understanding is the applicants can rebuild in kind. <br />Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis stated the better direction might be to not approve the setback variance and direct <br />the applicant to revise their plans in some way. <br />Schoenzeit stated his recommendation is based on the fact that the variance is required due to the existing garage, and if <br />the existing garage goes away, the applicants should be required to comply with the 25 percent. <br />Lemke asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is recommending that they approve the side setback variance if it exists as it <br />is, and if not, they would need to come back. <br />Schoenzeit noted Staff indicated they do not feel that would be helpful. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.