My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
02-19-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:36:54 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:35:42 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.
/
235
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
KUNirrESOFTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING CO.MMISSION ftlEETING <br />WcdMtdjiy, JuMry 22,2003 <br />0:30e*docfc|>.ai. <br />(•02-2003 RICHARD KAIL, Lmmtimutd) <br />Kail stated that the proposal reflects a lhrce<ar garage, with the third stall constituting storage for the <br />most part. Kail believed if the nei^hbonng alley ww vacated he would be closer to the 15% coverage <br />requirement. <br />Chair Smith asked if the applicant could make any further reductions to reduce the structural lot coverage <br />numbers or if he had adequate hardship to consince the Commission the wiance is warranted. <br />Kail reiterated that if the neighboring alley were vacated he wwild gain more area. He believed the City <br />had never filed for the alley and due to the presence of a shed foundation and well in the alley belonging <br />to this parcel he should Ik entitled to file for its rights. <br />Mabusth questioned whether the alley had ever been vacated. <br />Kail indicated that he was trying to find out who owns the alley, arguing the City did not file for it. and <br />felt the Cotmcil would allow him to vacate it. <br />Gafiron pointed out that, since the alley was a dedicated plat, the City need not file. In addition. GafTron <br />stated that he had difiiculty believing the City would ever vacate the parcel due to drainage issues. <br />Chair Smith maintained that the proposed new construction would need to be reduced to l5*!o. rather than <br />the 20“/o as proposed. She explained that, while the lot area variance would be acceptable, not more than <br />l5“/o structural lot coverage would be allowed, therefore a revision was needed. <br />Kail staled that he saw no way to reduce the proposed application to 151a. <br />Rahn reiterated that 15% is the ma.vimum structural lot coverage allowed. <br />Chair Smith stated that, if the applicant chose for the Commission to vote on what was m front of them it <br />would likely be a denial. <br />Kail repeated that he saw no way to downsize the proposal and asked for a vote. <br />Chair Smith moved, Maboslh seconded, lo approve the Lot Area Vartuce and deny the Lot <br />Cov erage Variance for Application ••2-28h3. Richard Kail, to ernstme a new rrsidence on the <br />property located at 3753 Casco Avenue. VOTE: Aves 6, .Nays 0. <br />PLA.NM.NG C'O.M.MISSIO.N CO.M.ME.NTS <br />CTiair Smith reported that the Home Occupation project is now m Ordinance form <br />GafTron indicated that the January 29 W ork Session topics will include rebuilds versus new construction, <br />and other topics as noted on the packet cover sheet. <br />Aficr speaking to Brad Nielsen. Planning Director for the City of Shorewood. GafTron indicated that their <br />threshold for new construciio:i is 50*•. <br />PAGE 28 of 29
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.