My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-25-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
09-25-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 1:18:13 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 1:14:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
188
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 AUGUST 21, 1995 <br />(#3 - #2036 Robert Gountanis - Continued) <br />Lindquist said be would not approve the 2-story garage. <br />Peterson said the garage was only shown as a 2-story on the elevation drawing. <br />Schroeder said considerable progress has been planned for the property with the house <br />being moved back out of the 0-75' setback area and believed this was enough to warrant <br />approval for the 2-story garage. <br />Gountanis said the reason case #3 was chosen was to improve all the setbacks. He said he <br />felt he had made concessions. It was key to Gountanis to maintain the basic shape and <br />gain as much house on the foot print as possible Gountanis emphasized that he tried to <br />accomodate the recommendations of the Planning Commission and stay within the <br />guidelines. <br />Peterson said he agreed with that summation. He noted that alternatives were limited, and <br />the issue of the 2-story garage w as a misunderstanding and an oversight. Peterson said he <br />would be inclined to vote for approval <br />Mabusth said the oversight was the reason the application was brought b-*ck before the <br />Commission. The oversight was also on the applicant's part for not bringing to the <br />attention of the Commission the desire for the garage to be two stories Gountanis said he <br />did not know it would be a concern. It was further noted that cases 1 and 2 did not <br />present the garage as two stories, only one <br />Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to deny the plan for a 2-story garage. Ayes 4, Hawn, <br />Smith, Berg, Lindquist; Nays, 2, Schroeder, Peterson. Motion for denial approved. <br />The applicant asked w hat was the definition of a one-story garage .Mabusth said there <br />was not one but it must be within the setbacks. Gountanis asked if he could follow the <br />roof line of the house Berg suggested following the same pitch, but lowering it one story, <br />and demonstrated what she meant on the overhead Mabusth said the design plan should <br />be reviewed <br />Ann Stevens voiced her frustration to the Planning Commission regarding the oversight, <br />the lost month of construction time, the costs involved in redesigning by the architect; <br />adding, she wanted the Council to review the plan She also said she was confused that it <br />was noted the floor plans were not detailed, when she felt Mabusth had said the plans <br />were the best Mabusth clarified that she had said the plans were adequate for the review <br />and addressed ail peninent issues
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.