My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2024 1:26:05 PM
Creation date
12/10/2024 1:24:17 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.
/
450
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
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 21, 1990 -• <br />,oKiTHr PILE *1334-REBERS CONSTRUCTION CONTINUED -a <br />for the Planning Commission to meet before obtains, <br />permit. <br />Mr. Kost said ^hatJie ^ ""wo^V^rolith\he <br />establish obDective sai ig acceptable. He stated <br />thit^it is dtmciJt to establish a basic criteria because of the <br />that It xs —+-uor- f;»r***ors uniQue to each lot.location of trees and other factors unique <br />Kelley believed that ^ecause^^each ^ j.ot^^ is^. <br />proposal should be revie P ^nmnromised auite a bit when <br />change the “rules of the game" at this point. <br />with the'stand“d's""estabh w?trLbdTvis!on \"proval'° <br />= fhP Citv and the Developer have Mr. Kost said that the C particularly in <br />interpreted some of tne tLt the standards do not <br />regard to the driveways. r'l*- for the driveway. Kt. <br />specify that there be only it is likely <br />K^t said that '' "l!?that the house will be placea ^g-back line, only a 20 <br />dri:La" wfll be "allow^'d." A 2o"' driveway will not adequately <br />serve a three-car garage. <br />.„„s;r»”avr <br />consideration. <br />as , a Mr- Knst if he woulc like to continue to v;ork <br />with s^ffto^preVre criteria that will mutually satisfactory. <br />aohnson questioned whether <br />force the builcer additional driveway area. He <br />suggL4"d\“hat"ma“y\ave more of a negative impact on the lot, <br />than allowing a loop driveway. <br />Bellows said that is f ””\"h/t°%hl’''dlve\oper'!s <br />:sfentL^\y varfa^%e%\%“^h:*’o%^gin^l standar^ds and <br />that variaLes require Planning Commission review. <br />It was the consensus °f the Planning^Co^i^^^^^^^^ <br />be no amendment to Resoluti -nmnlv with the standards set <br />forth!^^^^^^^^ commission. <br />- 18 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.