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
-H 11 II mWiWWPiBiWPWP <br />•IV <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 <br />rI*.r lONXNQ 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 />Gaffron noted that It Is about 20 x24 . <br />Miller explained that the normal two-car garage Is 22*x24', <br />and ho 1s proposing a three car garage with a 20' depth. He felt <br />that It is necessar, to have a three car garage for storage of <br />cars, boats, etc. Ho also stated that the cost factor would not <br />Justify building a two-car garage. <br />Schroedor 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 large amount of hardcover on the <br />property and felt that the hardcover should be reduced. <br />Miller expl:ined 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 tnat 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 />alone. . - . <br />Gaffron advised that they could. <br />It was" moved by Coheri, 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 felt It was basically replaced <br />and Schroeder concurred with that feeling. <br />♦
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.