My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-23-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
09-23-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:17:54 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:48:36 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.
/
283
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, Angnst 19,2902 <br />9:30 o’clock p.ra. <br />hardcover that existed before removals. <br />Rahn stated that he had no issue with the applicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2* <br />which would still keep them within the average lakeshore setback. <br />Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2*, the eaves on <br />top of that would mean that much more encroachment. <br />F^hn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within *hc 50* setback and <br />asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR SO* setback. <br />Gaifion stated that City*s are allowed to go beyond the DNR recommendation, and have done so <br />in some instances. <br />Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50* DNR setback and uphold this <br />reconunendation. <br />Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment. <br />Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65* s.f. **prow** addition and a 1 foot gable overhang, <br />which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed. <br />GaflBron pointed out that die 1,500 s.f. is a limit not an allowance to be met. <br />Bremer stated that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the <br />Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed encroaching <br />into the 75’ setback with a deck. She indicated that 50* is much too close and she could not <br />support the application. <br />Mabusth stated that she had no problem with the west lot line realignment but bad difScuity with <br />PAGE 18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.