My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-08-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
11-08-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 3:38:50 PM
Creation date
1/25/2023 2:05:59 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.
/
395
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, October 18,2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />Fritzlcr stated he docs not see a reason to increase the hardcover in this area and would not be in favor <br />of a gazabo at this time. <br />Ritter inquired whether the walkways would be permitted. <br />Fritzlcr stated he is not in favor of the hardcover increa.sing. <br />Curtis inquired whether the pathways arc actual steps. <br />Ritter indicated they arc a combination of walkways and steps to enable the property owner to access <br />her back yard. Ritter noted the walkway was shown on the original plan. <br />Curtis stated the stairway as proposed is to get around in the yard and not to access the lakcshore. <br />Rahn pointed out the only hardcover tliat is allowed to encroach in the 0-75’ area would be a pathway <br />from the home down to the lake. <br />Spencer commented that would be more detrimental in her view than a gazebo located further away <br />from the lake. <br />Kempf stated the gazebo is located approximately 15 feet from the existing deck and that he does not <br />recall the area being tliat uneven. <br />Spencer indicated the ground in that area is uneven. <br />Ritter stated there is a hill on either side of the house that makes it difficutt for his client to access <br />the back yard from the front. <br />Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be located is fairly flat. <br />Ritter stated that part of the yard is flat. Ritter indicated the patios were designed to be transition areas <br />so the property owner could access the back yard. Ritter stated it is his understrnding a property <br />owner has the right to nuke their back yard functional. <br />Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and uscble. <br />Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp. <br />Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the back yard but that the portion <br />where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is not needed to acccs.s that portion of the property. <br />PAGE 16 <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.