My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-14-1992 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets - Historical
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1992
>
09-14-1992 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2024 1:25:25 PM
Creation date
4/12/2024 1:21:50 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.
/
346
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 REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1992 <br />ZONING FILE #1748 - CONT. <br />Butler felt there were a coupleof applications before them tonight <br />where the applicants were caught between two groups of Planning <br />Commission members. She frit applicants that complied with the <br />directives of the Plarinii v Commission should be recognized for <br />doing so. <br />It was moved by Butier, seconded by Jabbour, to direct staff to <br />draft a resolution approving setback variances for Application <br />#1 748 for Robert and Rita Hovland of 1245 North Arm Drive, <br />approving a 15* side setback from the north lot line and a 13’ <br />setback from the south lot line. Ayes 5, nays 0. <br />(#5) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, <br />3548 IVY PLACE - <br />VARIANCES <br />Charles and Shirley Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present. <br />Mabusth explained this application was also reviewed at both the <br />July and August Planning Commission meetings. She noted the revised <br />proposal includes additional removal of 75-250’ hardcover at 172 <br />s.f., and the 663 s.f. roof structure originally proposed has been <br />reduced to 374 s.f. She noted the real issue for this proposal is <br />the lot coverage. Lot coverage was originally proposed at 24.5X <br />and has been reduced to 21.5%. The Planning Commission recommended <br />approval based on lot coverage be held at 10%, which would mean the <br />applicants would have xo give up either the roof structure or the <br />family room addition. <br />Butier stated here is another situation where the applicants were <br />g.ven directives from the Planning Coiwnission and came back with <br />a proposal and were denied. <br />Soetten felt that does not mean that the vote should have been <br />changed. <br />Jabbour agreed with Butler. He expressed concern about residents <br />exerting energy and money on revised plans and the City doe# not <br />act in good faith. <br />Qoetten stated the lot Is small and nee excessive amounts of <br />hardcover. She asked the applicants It there were any other areas <br />where they could reduce hardcover.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.