My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-17-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
03-17-1997 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:26:52 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:26:51 PM
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).
View images
View plain text
• <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 17, 1997 <br />( #7 - #2216 Winston and Barbara Adams - Continued) <br />Adams expressed his concern with the limitations placed on the property in relation to the <br />expense of the land itself. Lindquist explained the code in relation to lot size and <br />structural coverage. Stoddard explained that when existing residences are torn down, the <br />property is viewed as a vacant lot subject to zoning requirements. Adams said he was <br />unable to accept the limitations placed on the property regarding allowable structure. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to deny Application #2216. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />( #8) #2217 JOHN TIMMESH, 1945 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - <br />PUBLIC HEARING 10:11 -10:38 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Van Zomeren reported the property is located in the LR -1C Zoning District. The <br />property is 0.39 acres and does not meet the 112 acre minimum. The applicant is <br />• proposing to add a 18'x3 P storage addition to the existing garage. This proposal requires <br />variances to hardcover, structural coverage, and rear yard. The structural coverage exists <br />at 18.9% and would increase to 22.1 % for a 7.15% variance. Van Zomeren noted that <br />there are two separate parcels being considered and would require a combination for the <br />credits shown to be given. Van Zomeren said Staff suggests the shed be removed. The <br />shed currently encroaches into the side and rear yard. The pool exceeds the 1000 s.f <br />limitation but was installed prior to the 1986 requirement for a 30' side yard. Van <br />Zomeren noted that the property files show that no permit was taken out for the porch <br />addition and would affect the rear yard setback. Since the garage addition is for storage, <br />no driveway is proposed. Van Zomeren indicated that a future driveway would impact the <br />hardcover amounts on the property. She also voiced concerned that a future owner may <br />want to add structure over the proposed storage area. <br />• <br />Smith noted that the City has allowed garages to be built without driveways in the past. <br />She indicated that there was still an increase in the lot coverage and hardcover and <br />questioned what would preclude the storage area from being used as a garage in the <br />future. <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.