My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
03-25-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2023 4:15:25 PM
Creation date
8/31/2023 4:10:51 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.
/
265
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 orono planning commission <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1996 <br />(#5 - #2109 Todd Smith - Continued) <br />Hawn said she had no problem with the application but questioned the access to the rear <br />of the property. She requested that no more hardcover be laid to establish any pathway. <br />Mabusth asked the applicant how tn' well would be accessed. Applicant said he would <br />take the lilac bushes down. <br />Schroeder asked how the applicant would access the rear The applicant said he would <br />shovel to the back door and would walk on the grassed area to access the rear. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Mabusth noted a letter from neighbors, Grego'y and Julianne Peterson, which Schroeder <br />read as part of the public record, who voiced their support of the project. <br />Smith brought attention to the structural coverage and its excess amount over the <br />allowable. Smith said she would prefer that the comer of the addition be taken oil so it <br />would not extend past the line of the adjacent two houses Smith also said that if the <br />application was approv ed, she would request that a recommendation of no structural <br />improvements be noted in the resolution. Schroeder commented that the apphcation <br />called for no additional increase. Mabusth and Smith commented that the addition would <br />be of a more permanent nature. Schroeder asked if sewering was a factor to consider, <br />which Smith agreed did help. <br />Hawn said the fact that the property was adjacent to a park made the application more <br />appealing. <br />Smith noted that a fence separated the property from another garage which would, <br />otherwise, almost appear to be on the same property. Smith asked the applicant about <br />lumber laying on the property. The applicant said it was part ot the front siding being <br />installed <br />Schroeder said the improvements were nice but did note ihe small lot with a large amount <br />of structural coverage. <br />Lindquist said he concurs with Smith on the request that no additional structure be <br />allowed Smith said tuture owners need to be aware ol this request.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.