My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2020
>
01-21-2020 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2020 3:59:09 PM
Creation date
1/22/2020 9:41:44 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.
/
228
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 />Monday, November 18, 2019 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 40 of 46 <br /> <br />Mr. Hueler stated it made perfect sense. He had the architect pinch the house and come up with a plan that <br />is very close to conformity. <br /> <br />Ressler said the Commission's intent by the feedback is to give the applicant hope. We're saying we don't <br />support it at 22, but it gives the City Council the opportunity to approve it at 22 percent. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated the type of motion he would be most comfortable with mimics the staff recommendation <br />which is, Planning Staff recommends approval of lot width, lot area, rear setback, and some level of <br />hardcover variance should the plan be reduced so the structural level is conforming at 20 percent. <br /> <br />Ressler said the applicant has stated he is generally agreeable if that is what it takes. <br />Bollis suggested approving it with that Staff recommendation rather than deny it. <br /> <br />Ressler said the only reason why is, by doing so, we're asking him to bring it at 20 percent in front of the <br />City Council where, right now it could still go in front of the City Council at 22 percent, and he could be <br />prepared with a 20 percent sketch in the event it does not pass. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the Commission is not comfortable with the 22 percent, Staff recommends denying the 22 <br />percent with the reasons stated. Denying is not a negative; it's conditioned on those other conditions. She <br />felt that gives the applicant more clarity from the Commission's perspective. She said that's what she is <br />hearing, and she does not want to be ambiguous for the applicant because there are not a lot of meetings <br />left this year. <br /> <br />Ressler said the Commission would encourage the applicant to bring it to the City Council and see if 22 <br />percent would be agreeable but to be prepared with something that could be amended and approved at 20. <br />He stated Curtis was right, if the Commission makes it very specific as to why the Commission is not <br />approving, that gives direction to the Council. <br /> <br />Erickson stated that he likes what is on the staff report, that Staff recommends approval of lot width, and <br />so on, should the plan be reduced to 20 percent. <br /> <br />Ressler stated that is not how it is applied, is the problem. <br /> <br />Curtis suggested the Commission could do it in one denial of the whole as proposed, or the Commission <br />could approve the other variances and deny the structural coverage variance. <br /> <br />Thiesse said the Commission could deny it solely on the fact that he is over the structure cover by 2 <br />percent. <br /> <br />Erickson stated he would like to keep it positive and approve it with a 20 percent structural canopy. The <br />applicant still has the option to go to the City Council with something else.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.