My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-15-1995 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1995
>
05-15-1995 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/27/2023 3:33:22 PM
Creation date
9/27/2023 3:28:27 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.
/
253
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 MAY 15, 1995 <br />(#10 - #2017 William Hibbs - Continued) <br />Mabusth reported that the applicant was before the Planning Commission a few years ago <br />for a proposed enpansion of the residence The application was denied by the Planning <br />Commission due to the excessive amount of hardcover. The hardcover issue involved <br />structural and non-structural hardcover. <br />The current proposal involves the removal of the 25’x44.3\ 1 story, west side of the <br />residence and replace with a 23 5'x44.3’, 2-1/2 story addition The driveway would be <br />relocated off of Fageraiess Road. Two accessory structures will be removed, and a new <br />driveway will be installed. The new access has been approved by the Engineer. <br />Mabusth explained how side setbacks work on comer lots; 15' setback is required off <br />Webb Street, and 33' is proposed 30* is required for a front street setback. There will be <br />23' setback from Fagemess Point Road Mabusth noted that if the structure was to be <br />moved to the north to meet required 30’ setback, more excavation would be required. All <br />inq>rovements result in hardcover reductions. <br />Lindquist asked how close the deck is to the road. Mabusth said the deck is located about <br />15'-20'. <br />In reviewing the information, the structural coverage is reduced by 3% and is proposed at <br />23%. The hardcover reduction is 18%; reducing it to 31.97% in the 75-250' setback area. <br />Setbacks are improved. <br />Peterson commented that the proposal is a nu^r improvement to the lot and the structure. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Nolan asked if the shed on the property would be removed and received ait affirmative <br />reply <br />Smith asked that the yard be cleaned up and stuff removed. The applicant said it would be <br />done after construction is completed as there was no place to store anything now. <br />Mabusth reported that applicant advised that there will be no retaining wall to the west <br />adjacent to garage but graduated landscaping. <br />Mabusth asked applicant if he considered moving the structure to meet the 30' setback. <br />Hibbs responded that this would require removal of a large Hackberry tree and would not <br />want to lose the tree.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.