My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-26-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
07-26-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/8/2024 1:02:53 PM
Creation date
1/8/2024 1:00:40 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.
/
227
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 MEETING <br />HELD JUNE 21, 1993 <br />ZONING FILE #1823 - CONT. <br />Peterson reDortea tney just aporoved a subdivision for the Wirtjes <br />orooerty to the rear of the Rossing home, and stressed that outside <br />storage would Decome a oroblem when that lot is developed. <br />Rowletle understood there would not be large commercial vehicles <br />located on the orooerty. <br />Rossing clarified she is allowed one per the ordinance, anc one- <br />ton vans do not count as a commercial vehicle. <br />Berg asked how many ceople live in the home and how many vehicles <br />are on the oroof.rty. <br />Rossing reoliec there are currently 4 adults in the home, but soon <br />to be o, and they wi I I have 5 to 6 vehicles. <br />Mabusth asked about tne numoer of boats and the size. <br />Rossing reolied tyoicaliy it is only one boat - a 15’ runabout. <br />Nolan asked about the storage of construction material outside. <br />Rossing resorted her son is in the construction business, but <br />typically only park-’ his truck on the property and construction <br />material is stored off site. <br />Mabusth indicated the business would require approval of a Home <br />Occupation License. <br />Rowlette expressea '-oncern that there is not enough parking ori the <br />property for 6 venicies, and the need to appease the neighbors <br />concerns about the appearance of the property. <br />Lindquist stated he is not comfortable having any outside storage <br />hidden behind a privacy fence. <br />Mabusth roiteratea the issue here is not the variance for the deck <br />addition, but rather the matter of a violation of all owed^ex terior <br />storage in a residential yard. The applicant does not need a <br />variance for construction of a secono accessory structure and <br />installation of the fence. <br />Lindquist stated he has no problem with tne deck addition. He asked <br />their options regarding the storage.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.