My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:26:30 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:21:05 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.
/
341
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
L <br />MINtTES OF THE <br />ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 18,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock pjB. <br />(i04>30S5 Dr. Martka Speaerr, Coatiaacd) <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 IS feet from the existing deck and that he docs not <br />recall the area being that 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 difficult for his client to access the <br />back yard from the front. <br />Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be loeated is fairly flat. <br />Ritter stated that port 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 understanding a property <br />owner has the nght to make their back yard functional <br />Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and usable. <br />Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp. <br />Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the hack >ard but that the portion <br />where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is nol needed to access that poition of the property. <br />Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the cunent design or the amount of hardcover being proposed. <br />Ritter reiterated that the reason for a variance is to make a back yard functional and usable <br />Rahn indicated he is not aware of that language being contained in the code. <br />Gundlach indicated she also is not aw are of that. <br />Leslie stated the two plateaus in the back yard do not prohibit the applicant from enjo>ing the back <br />yard. Leslie stated the property owner has access to the back yard tl^ugh the lower level of the house <br />and acceu to the front yard from the upper level of the residence. Leslie suted the back yard is being <br />used today and m accessible. Leslie stated in his opinion the absence of a gazebo does not make the <br />back >'ard nonfurKtional. <br />Ritter inquired what demment there w ould be to the environment or to the property if a gazebo w ere <br />constructed as proposed. <br />PAGE 19
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.