My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 10:43:33 AM
Creation date
1/11/2023 10:24:46 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.
/
309
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
Oundlach pointed out the air conditioning equipment would remain ir, (liat area, which requires the <br />wrought iron. <br />Winkey inquired whether the drivc^''ay was originally included in the hardcover calculation for the 0-75 ’ <br />/one or whether that only included the retaining walls that were approved in 2001. <br />Gundlach stated the driveway was allowed to remain in 2001 based on the level of hardship that the <br />Planning Commission found at that time. Gundlach stated the Planning Commission could recommend <br />denial of the application if they find that there is no hardship. Gundlach noted a majority of the house is <br />located within 75 ’ feet of the lake and was at one point restored. <br />Thomas pointed out the driveway as it currently exists is exactly as it was when they purchased the <br />property in 2001. lliomas indicated the property was built in the 1920s, witli the retaining walls also <br />being constructed at that time, lliomas stated they repaired tlic retaining walls due to their deteriorating <br />condition in 2001. <br />Fritzicr stated he can understand the desire to add a door to improve the safety but that he does not sec <br />how adding a deck would add to the safety or security any more tiian the existing window. Fritzlcr stated <br />he would not have an issue with adding a door and a step down but that he is not in favor of adding a <br />deck. <br />I.csiic stated normally the Planning Commission docs not like to exchange structural improvements witii <br />hardcover, but that in this case ho docs not feel it is likely that tliis wrought iron deck would be replaced <br />witli anotlicr material over time due to the air conditioning equipment being located in that area. <br />l.eslic stated although the deck still counts as hardcover, it is not the same type of hardu>ver as the <br />driveway and that he would look more favorably upon approving the deck. <br />Rahil inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to have the size of the deck reduced from <br />eight feet to four feet. <br />L/Csiie inquired whether the amount of driveway to be reduced would tlicn decrease if the size of the deck <br />were to decrease.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.