My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-25-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
10-25-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 2:05:31 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 1:30:42 PM
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.
/
430
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 ^ffiETLNG <br />Monday, September 20,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Persian indicated that is correct. <br />Gundlach stated the height of the structure is restricted by the height of the principal structure and <br />cannot exceed the principal structure. <br />Jurgens inquired whether Xcel’s easement states that no buildings can be constructed within the <br />easement or whether there is a height restriction <br />Persian indicated he was infonned that 'le could not construct any building within 75 feet of the center <br />line. Persian noted their mound system is constructed within a portion of the easement. <br />Fritzler stated he is not in favor of that size building on a lot that is 2.9 acres in size. <br />Persian inquired what the thought process is behind allowing three or four smaller bu.Icings rather than <br />one larger bu. idmg. Persian stated he is aware of a property on Old Orchard Park Road that exceeds the <br />schedule for building size that is visible from County Road 6. <br />Gaffron stated to his recollection that building was based on housing a vehicle and the minimum size <br />and length for that vehicle was part of what drove the approval for that specific vehicle. <br />Persian stated to his knowledge the vehicle does not fit within the building. <br />Gaffron indicated that is also his understanding at the present time, but that the size of the building was <br />approved so that the vehicle could fit within the structure. <br />Kempf commented one of the reasons for limiting the size of the structure is the visual impact. Kempf <br />stated in his view' the visual impact does rot apply here given the amount of trees on the property. <br />Kempf stated it is difficult to functionally find anything wTong with the applicant’s proposal and that it <br />comes down to the issue of protecting the code. <br />Persian stated he understands this type of structure would not be appropriate if he w'as living in a <br />neighborhood where there w'erc neighbors in close proximity, but that he believes it is more <br />aesthetically pleasing to have one building rather than three. Persian stated in his opinion only the roof <br />of the proposed structure may be visible from his dnveway, noting that the grade of the lot does slope <br />PAGE 14 <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.