My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-23-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
05-23-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 8:51:07 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 8:40:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
i <br />p <br />L <br />Olson stated they proposed a 20’by 20* garage to follow the recommendation of the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Mrs. Olson stated their driveway currently accommodates six vehicles. <br />White stated in his opinion a person is entitled to a garage ai]d that he would prefer 22* by 20*. <br />McMillan stated she has a concern that a vehicle would be parked outside if a 20’ by 20’ garage <br />is constructed.♦* 4 • ‘ <br />Peterson noted Staff is recommending a 20* by 20* ga^c but that she would prefer a 22* by 20* <br />garage. <br />A ■ ■, <br />Peterson moved, White seconded, to approve a 22’ by 20* garage for Application tlOS-3103 <br />Jack and Karl Olson, 1966 Shadywood <br />I . V '"Z ' <br />•4 . <br />Mischke stated he has a 20’ by 20’ garau'and that He would recommend a 21 * by 21’ garage. <br />i» vr ;Gaffron stated StafTs recommendation is for struchfre coverage hot to exceed ISOO square feet. <br />f »• r <br />y- <br />GafRon pointed out a standard garage door is I wide.^G^ron stated pictures depicting Mr. <br />Mischke*s garage show the Jimited amount of spibe available with a 20’ by 20’ garage. <br />White indicated he is not opposed^ making the garage 22 feet deep and 20 feet wide. <br />Olson stated he would prefer the width. <br />Jurgm^stathd thd concefhof the Planning t^ihmission was the amount of structural coverage on <br />/- &is.tbt and that the garage,^uld[ be redesigned to better meet the structural coverage limits. <br />Mchfillan stated she also ha^i ticihcem with adding structural coverage on lots, noting that at <br />.y' ■.•'• Isome poihflbis do reach their liihit. McMillan recommended that the motion also include the <br />stipulation that no additftm coverage be allowed on this lot in the future. <br />Peterson agreed td ahwiiiti her motion to include a stipulation on future structural coverage. <br />Sansevere recommended some type of landscape screening also be included in the motion. <br />Gaffron stated Staff would prefer to see a landscape plan. <br />Olson indicated he would be willing to landscape the back of the garage.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.