My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
10-14-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/16/2024 9:46:31 AM
Creation date
7/16/2024 9:41:49 AM
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.
/
273
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
F <br />>- <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 <br />lONZNQ FILE #1679 - CONT. <br />Gaffron reported that the proposed garage leaves about a 3‘ <br />area of the existing gravel parking area behind the garage which <br />will not be able to be used as parking In the future.However, <br />It has been driven on before and It may be compacted and there <br />fore has been classified as hardcover. <br />Rowlette asked what normal two-car garage dimensions are. <br />Ga»' *on noted that 1t Is about 20*x24‘. <br />Mil i&r explained that the normal two-car garage Is 22*x24', <br />and he Is proposing a three car garage with a 20* depth. He felt <br />that It Is necessary to have a three car garage for storage of <br />cars, boats, etc. He also stated that the cost factor would not <br />Justify building a two-car garage. <br />Schroeder felt that the garage Is too large, <br />concurred. <br />Moos also <br />Miller felt that he has reduced the hardcover down as <br />as possible.He also noted the other variances which <br />approved with excesses of hardcover. <br />much <br />were <br />Schroeder responded that each application Is different with <br />different merits. <br />Johnson felt there Is a l«rge amount of hardcover on <br />property and felt that the hardcover should be reduced. <br />the <br />Miller explained that If It Is tabled or denied and the <br />garage Is not built, then the hardcover stays at 37%, opposed to <br />the 30% proposed. With respect to the bathhouse. Miller pointed <br />out that only the bottom half of the structure was replaced. <br />Johnson asked about the new slab. <br />Miller stressed that only the foundation for the posts on <br />the lake side were replaced. <br />Rowlette concurred that If the deck/stairway/bathhouse Is <br />considered as one unit, then the value Is probably far more than <br />what was repaired.She asked If the deck and stairs could stand <br />alone. <br />Gaffron advised that they could. <br />It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend <br />approval of the structural maintenance of the bathhouse. Ayes 3, <br />nays 2. <br />Johnson voted nay because he fwlt It was basically replaced <br />and Schroeder concurred with that fej'ing.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.