My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-13-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
06-13-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 9:49:00 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:13:07 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.
/
358
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 <. fVl <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 16,2005 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Jurgens inquired what the length of the home with the L-shaped garage is on the survey'. <br />Gustafson stated it is 96.10. <br />Jurgens noted that is an additional 17 feet in depth, and inquired whether the back of the house would be <br />going east if the house is constructed longer on this lot rather than wider. <br />Gustafson stated the house would probably be pushed further to the east. <br />Winkey inquired whether the house has been reduced ten feet by whether it is angled differently on the <br />lot. <br />Gustafton stated the size of the house was reduced and the layout of the house was rearranged somewhat. <br />Winkey stated his recollection of the last Planning Commission meeting the applicant was given direction <br />to minimize the encroachment and that this proposal is a good step towards achieving that goal. <br />Fritzler inquired what the side yard setback would be with the angled garage. <br />Gustafson stated it would be 20 feet <br />Bremer stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey and that the plan being proposed tonight is <br />a good compromise. Bremer noted one of the goals in reviewing variances is to protect the future <br />property ownen of the adjoining lots and that it ought be necessary to reduce the encroachment into the <br />side yard setback. Bremer stated the size of the lot in her view does constitute some hardship. <br />Rahn inquired whether it would be necessary for this application to re^pear before the Planning <br />Commission if the Planning Commission is in &vor of the 20-foot side yard setback. <br />Gaffiron stated in his view the applicant could submit a plan depicting exactly what is being proposed <br />tonight for staff review and would not have to reappear before the Planning Commission. <br />Rahn stated he would prefer to see a home that does not go deeper, which would be more intrusive to the <br />neighbors. <br />Bremer noted the encroachment does not go the entire length of the lot but is rather a limited area. <br />Fritzler stated he prefers the angled garage even though it does encroach into the side yard setback rather <br />than the longer house. <br />id
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.