My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
10-14-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:18:24 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:50:00 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.
/
345
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 OFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Mvaday, Aagnt If, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock pjn. <br />Smitti asked Mr. Libennan if he could support the shift if the artMrvitae remained. <br />Mr. Liberman stated that he could supp<Ht the shift if the aiborvitae did remain. <br />Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent <br />Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difiiculty supporting the <br />eaves and “prow”. <br />Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the extending peak or *t>row”, he felt the <br />fiont either had to be strai^t across or moved back further into the house. <br />Mabusth and Bremer felt the ^plicant needed to maintain a 53’ setback. <br />Rahn stated that he liked the new design. <br />Smith stated that she liked the “prow” but wanted to see it at S3’. She questioned whether the <br />Commission could support giving them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated <br />that she could see that three of the Conunissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. <br />Ms. Welch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin existing home <br />application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be <br />allowed any decking. <br />Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were <br />smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. hardcover. <br />Smith suggested the q;q>licants table the ^)plication in order to redesign the plan, pulling back <br />the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53’and coming back again. <br />PAGE 20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.