My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
09-22-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 8:45:01 AM
Creation date
2/8/2023 2:54:04 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.
/
470
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
• • <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 16,2003 <br />6;00 o’clock p.m. <br />(#4 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) <br />There were no public comments. <br />While the total lot area indicales the Nagel's have 23,210 s.f„ Ms. Nagel pointed out that, in <br />whi th% cl'Su'S S <br />gSSSSBSSSS- <br />Nagel asked if they could back the garage up 1 1/2’ to alleviate the street setback variance. <br />^ hardcover variance requirements were different. She <br />stated that Ae applicants would need to hold to the 15% structural coverage limitation; however, <br />by sliding back the garage the hardcover variance request would be eliminated. <br />left!^r proposed bump-out would be acceptable if the garage addition was <br />Zugschwert, Rahn, and Bremer aU concurifd with staffs recommendation. <br />m^filatbM recommendations with a few more <br />Mabusth indicated that she could support approving all but the garage addition. <br />Since It would be staffs recommendation to get back to the 1999 approvals, Gaffron indicated <br />Aat blacktop would need to be removed and, since 1% is equal to 232 s.f, virtually, the enUre <br />garage addition would need to be wiped out. ^ <br />Na^l ayecd ^JaWe the application in order to work with staff on specific goals of the plan. She <br />asked whether the Commission or Siaff felt the wetland survey should be pursued. <br />Gaffron could not comment whether the City Council or Commission would wish to use wetland <br />or sepstfated land as part of lot ^ea calculations. Since the entire code would need to be <br />reconsidered, which staff would not support, he didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. <br />P«ge 8 of 22 <br />mm <br />1J
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.