My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-20-1990 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
08-20-1990 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/20/2023 9:42:31 AM
Creation date
12/1/2022 11:17:07 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE #1473/#1570-DOl«JEY CONTINUED <br />Mr. Downey said, "I was hoping to have been able to start <br />the house remodeling by nov/. I would like to solve the drainage <br />problem, but that could wait until spring. Council asked to see <br />the conditional use permit before they v/ould approve the front <br />entry proposal." <br />Rowlette asked whether the applications could be separated. <br />Mabusth suggested that the Planning Commission make a strong <br />recommendation to Council that they act separately on the <br />variance phase of the application. She said, "The Planning <br />Commission could provide the reasons for delaying a <br />recommendation on the conditional use permit. There is really no <br />connection between the two applications. I v/ould suggest to Mr. <br />Downey that he have his landscape architect meet with City staff <br />to receive some direction. Perhaps the Planning Commission can <br />also provide some direction as to what they would like to see." <br />There were no comments from the public pertaining to this <br />application and the Public Hearing was continued. <br />It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Bellows, to recommend <br />approval of the applicant's proposal for 48% hardcover. Hanson <br />stated that 48% is reasonable based on the fact that the <br />landscaping was not included in the 1982 survey by Mr. Do\;ney's <br />contractors. Motion, Ayes-5. Nays-0. Motion carried. <br />It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend <br />approval of the after-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance <br />for a second story deck, conditioned on the applicant paying a <br />double fee for the permit. Hanson based his recommendation on <br />the fact that the second story deck does not interfere with the <br />sight-line views of the lake for the properties on either side. <br />Johnson believed that in light of the time that has elapsed it is <br />appropriate to waive the double fee. Rov/lette concurred. <br />Motion. Ayes-3, Rowlette, Johnson, Nay. f'otion carried. <br />It was moved by Bellov/s, seconded by Hanson, to table <br />application #1570, to allow time for Mr. Downey to v/ork with City <br />staff and his contractor to design a minimal retaining wall <br />system that will address the primary areas of concern. Those <br />areas include the boat house, and the stone walk near the deck. <br />Bellows noted that Mr. Downey will require approval to have the <br />lakeshore stairs repaired and that should be included in his <br />application. Johnson stated that he could not see how the three- <br />tier plan would work and suggested that fir. Dov/ney may wish to re <br />evaluate that aspect of the plan as well. Motion, Ayes-5, <br />Nays-0. Motion carried. <br />- 6 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.