My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-20-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
09-20-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2023 12:13:02 PM
Creation date
11/1/2023 12:06:35 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.
/
394
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).
View images
View plain text
r <br />Peterson asked why there needs to be two entrances. <br />Mn». Jundl responded that they want the caretakers to have their ow n private entrance. <br />Schroeder explained that the issue for the City is that a private entrance might indicate an <br />intent to rent the unit and asked whether they planned to rent out the unit. He commented that <br />one way to prohibit rental of the unit w ould be to have the principle access through the main <br />house. <br />Mrs. Jundt replied that her intent is not to rent the unit but to have a caretaker living on site. <br />Peterson commented that the two stairways leading from the lower level seem so close that it <br />didn’t seem necessary to have an additional access. <br />The architect for the project explained the stairs seem close on the second lloor level but that <br />they are not close at the bottom. <br />Mabusth noted that the second stairway serves as access from the garage to the kitchen and <br />eventually to the second floor. <br />It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend for approval of application <br />#1866for James and Joann Jundt for conditional use permit required for caretaker apartment <br />within the second floor of the mam hou.se as propo.sed. Vote: Ayes 7 Nays 0. <br />#1867 <br />Mrs. Jundt was concerned about the hardship statement that involves the boathou.se and steps. <br />See Exhibit K, # 1. Their plans are not to abandon the boathou.se and steps as the property has <br />historical significance and they want to a.ssessall factors before making a decision on lakeshore <br />improvements. <br />Rowlette explained that it has been the City’s intent to remove non-conforming .structures <br />within the 0-75’ that begin to deteriorate and that applicant would have to work closely with <br />the City on any repair or changes to this structure. <br />Mabusth explained that the stone steps near the boathouse are figured in the hardcover <br />calculations. <br />Architect clarified the size of the deck as well as the purpo.se of the deck. It will be used for <br />storage of dock sections, and not for sitting or viewing. <br />Mabusth stated that there are no particular regulation regarding the light on the deck. <br />Lindquist asked what it would look like. <br />Architect stated that it would be a decorative, low inten.sity type light fixture.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.