My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-16-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
09-16-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:27:19 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 4:24:39 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.
/
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
L <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o^clock p.m. <br />(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) <br />Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difficulty supporting the <br />eaves and “prow”. <br />Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the e,xtending peak or “prow”, he felt the <br />front either had to be straight across or moved back further into the house. <br />Mabusth and Bremer felt the applicant 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 53’. 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 Commissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. <br />Ms. Welch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin c.xisting 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. lot coverage. <br />Smith suggested the applicants tabic the application in order to redesign the plan, pulling back <br />the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53’ and coming back again. <br />Smith once again asked if the Commission were willing to give a little bit on the square footage. <br />Mabusth stated that the original home had 660 s.f of hardcover and felt it justified to hold the <br />new residence to that figure, yet she stressed how important it was to maintain the 53’ setback. <br />Smith asked if this meant up to the 50 ’ DNR recommendation. <br />Fritzler and Bremer stated that they would adhere to the approved 53’ and no less. <br />Mabusth stated that she would like to know how deep the proposed overhang would be. <br />Rahn stated that he could support the 50 ’ setback. <br />Ms. Welch asked the Commission to set the parameters for her and she would take them back to <br />PAGE 16 of 28
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.