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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 18,2005 <br />0:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Rahn stated in his view thei« arc ways to design a home to fit onto a 50-foot building pad and that he <br />agrees with Staffs recommendations. <br />Kempf indicated he also is in agreement with Staffs recommendations and that the side yard setbacks are <br />important in protecting tlie rights of the neighbors now and in the future. Kempf commented it is possible <br />^.^;u^-_-z.rrj.to con8truct-&very nice residence on this lot. <br />Bremer stated some of the houses recently constructed on Watertown Road had the same issue with the <br />side yard setback and that she has some qualms whether 30 feet is the right number for the side yard <br />setback but that in her view IS feet is not sufficient <br />Giistafton inquired whether a small portion of the garage could stick within the side yard setback. <br />Bremer stated that would be less intiusive on that side of the property but noted that the whole length of <br />the house on the other side of the lot would be within the side yard sr .b. ck. <br />Alexander stated typically a SO-foot wide house is going to be a simpler house, and that given the size of <br />the lot, the house would be located deeper, whir*- would be more inlrusive to tlie neighbors. <br />Rahn stated proximity to ti*e adjoining properties is a main concern <br />Gustafson stated a deeper house would be oul of conformity with the rest of the neighborhood and would <br />look out of place. <br />Rahn stated the applicant has to design a house that fits the lot <br />Gustafton reiterated they are irymg to design a house that would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. <br />Leslie suggested tabling the .• plication and having the applicant look at redesigning the house. Leslie <br />commented he might be in &vor of' / me variance but that he is not in agreenient with the proposed <br />setback. <br />Primer stated he is not in favor of any side yard setback. <br />Jurgens indicated he does not want to express an opinion on the amount of setback and Ural the goal is to <br />be conforming as much as possible.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.