My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-18-1991 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1991
>
03-18-1991 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 11:59:14 AM
Creation date
12/14/2022 11:56:47 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
A <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 18, 1991 <br />(#6)ZONING FILE #1624-DAVID CARLSON CONTINUED <br />traditional si^ory and a iialf, it will ba no <br />buildings across the street." <br />taller than the <br />Torangeau asked what is happening with the property across <br />the street. <br />Crear stated that he \/as unable to attend the last Council <br />meeting when the gas station property was discussed. He <br />expressed concern regarding the increased traffic on Spates <br />Avenue. He said, "That is an issue that should be addressed no <br />natter what happens with the gas station property. <br />Torangeau suggested blocking off Spates Avenue just before <br />••.he railroad tracks- He stated that the majority of traffic <br />• _ ^ A 1— — 1 — 1 A ^comes from people attempting to avo .d the back«id up traffic <br />trying to get onto to Highway 15 from County Road 51. <br />Kelley stated that approval of the previo-us application <br />included a 40' x 30' building envelope. He suggested that <br />Planning Commission could require the building to be constructed <br />entirely within that area, and it would be up to the applicant to <br />size the building accordingly if he wished to have the decks. <br />Mabusth noted that the 40* x 30’ ouilding envelope, as <br />approved v/ith application #1592, did not include the decks. She <br />said, "40' x 30* included only the structure itself." <br />Kelley observed that the original proposal did not include a <br />second-story deck, only a grade level deck. He said, "We did not <br />consider the aspect of a second-story deck with the last <br />application." <br />Bellov/s said, "I am inclined to agree with the neighbors. I <br />think this structure is so much closer to what anyone living in <br />that neighborhood would want to see, that I hesitate a bit to <br />want to change it. VJhat concerned me about disallowing the deck <br />on the second level is that the retail business cannot logically <br />be moved upstairs. Without the second-story deck, the clubhouse <br />looses any kind of exterior space. In my opinion. this <br />structure, with the deck, is very much in keeping v/ith what our <br />lakeside structures oiight to be. I have no objections to this <br />plan." <br />Hanson stated that he had no objections to this application. <br />The Public Hearing was continued <br />- 12 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.