My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-12-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
05-12-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:13:10 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 9:13:57 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.
/
282
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 21,2003 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />Mr. Bricko stated that the entire home would need to be rebuilt to accommodate the narrow <br />lot if it were slid back, and the home would lose its 1930 ’s charm. <br />Mrs. Midthun pointed out that a chimney sits in the center of the home, which needs to be <br />balanced on either side, hence their design. If they removed a portion from the kitchen <br />half, the design would appear off-kilter and they would lose any views of the lake from <br />that room. <br />Rahn agreed with Fritzler that the setbacks should be maintained. He believed that the lot <br />offered a great deal more spare and was haidpressed to allow this when there was more <br />room to use. He felt this was a design issue and not a hardship. <br />Mrs. Midthun indicated that the alternatives, including removing the existing chinmey, <br />were much more costly. She wished to preserve the cottage look of the property and felt <br />that the design would be ruined of they were to pursue these other options. <br />Bricko asked if footings could somehow be put under what was currently there. <br />Rahn stated that he would still be opposed to the project, adding that, typically, the <br />Planning Commission requires people to pull in new additions to meet setbacks. <br />While Chair Smith liked the cottage charm, as a Commission, they could not grant the <br />vanance. <br />Mabusth suggested consideration be given to a lot line rearrangement with the neighbor to <br />gain the extra S’. <br />Mr. Berg indicated that he would not be willing to grant a lot line rearrangement for this <br />purpose, since his lot was already narrow to the lake. <br />PAGE IS of 56
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.