My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-09-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
05-09-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 9:06:22 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 8:39:46 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.
/
326
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
Mr. McDonnell stated people have fallen on that landing and that the uncovered entry is also dripping <br />water down by the foundation of the residence. <br />Mrs. McDonnell stated in her view they do not have an option and that ihe safety of their children and <br />other visitors to their residence is a priority. McDonnell comme|itcd they do not have many options <br />Winkey commented he does not really see a hardship in this sitiiation ‘and that the Planning Commission <br />‘ '? <br />needs to remain consistent. Winkey noted the hardco^eejia^^^ 75 ;25Q’ zone is almost double what is <br />/»*A' ‘’I '"i, .. •• lAlAJvi.l A.allowed and that there should be major reductions in^Viikrdcpi'ef. . Wink'ey c6^ the main issue is <br />the structural coverage. <br />■ • p <br />t* • <br />Mr. McDonnell reiterated thal a number of people have falleh on thiif landing. <br />^. • r, , * ♦S' ^II <br />Winkey stated the area could be shoveled and saltodp^ <br />Mr. McDonnell indicated the area is wood and is sUppery when wet. <br />Winkey stated in his opinion the issue is the amount of structural-covdra^ on the lot. <br />Bremer stated in her view this applict^n is^difTere^tltiJan an application for a garage due to the safety <br />• -iv> <br />1 ,‘i • <br />f- ^ <br />considerations, but noted other ppj^liekhts have heed j^uifed'td'ltduce their plans down to the bare <br />minimum in order to complv' wij^the stm coverage limit. Bremer stated she would like to see <br />• ^ , j,, ■ . <br />further reductions in hardcover, which thei applicants have indicated they are willin' to do. Bremer stated <br />‘ t. <br />. >*Vv.f ♦ <br />, . ... : i <br />she would be in favor of the'76 feet but that aenhetics is not a hardship. <br />Jud^mi inquired whether the a^jiciints are willing to work with the 80 feet. Jurgens pointed out 80 <br />V'.-i' •■.!, <br />^paie film would allow an 8 ’ byilO* landing, which is easier to construct. <br />Mrs. Mc(|bn{^ll Indicated they'wpujd be willing to redesign their plans to meet the 80 square feet. <br />Fritzler stated lit hia view Wliaf^j^vered entry way could be achieved with 76 or 77 square feet and that <br />; , < •: ^.r. <br />reductions in hardcover normally are not exchanged for additional structural coverage. <br />Jurgens stated 260 square feet of driveway would need to be removed. <br />Mrs. McDonnell requested 80 square feet. <br />Jurgens staled on every application the Planning Commission looks at reducing hardcover wherever <br />possible. <br />*—
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.