My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Brown Road South
>
920 Brown Road South - 10-117-23-12-0002
>
Land Use
>
05-3102, VAR
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/16/2026 1:27:12 PM
Creation date
4/16/2026 1:23:23 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.
/
216
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, July 17, 2006 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(#05-3102 Stonewood Design Build, Continued) <br />Gustafson stated they have recently submitted some colored drawings for review by the Plam1ing <br />Commission, with the items highlighted in green being the items they would like approval on. Gustafson <br />stated they attempted to angle the garage as reconm1ended by the Planning Commission. <br />Gustafson noted the neighbors are in attendance at tonight's meeting and are in support of the project. <br />Bremer opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. <br />Shantelle Sumner, ·930 Brown Road, indicated they are totally in favor of the new house plan and feel that <br />the home would help to improve the value of the homes in the neighborhood. <br />Bremer inquired whether the applicant has reviewed the plans that have been submitted tonight. <br />Sumner stated she has not reviewed what was submitted tonight. <br />Gustafson stated the angled garage does not affect this neighborhood. <br />David Skeie, 860 Brown Road, stated they were in favor of the original project and have since reviewed <br />the new plans and are in favor of the project. <br />Bremer closed the public hearing at 6: 10 p.rn. <br />Kempf inquired whether the only difference is the angled garage on the alternate plan. <br />Gustafson stated it is. Gustafson pointed out the difference in the massing between the two designs, <br />noting that the latest proposal is lesser in height. <br />Bremer inquired what plan the applicants would like to have approved. <br />Gustafson stated the prope1ty owner has not had a chance to review the alternate plan with the angled <br />garage. <br />Bremer conunented she personally does not have a problem with the application. <br />Kroeger stated he does not see any benefit to the alternate plan since it is the same amount of <br />encroachment as the original plan. <br />Bremer stated her recollection of the concern expressed previously was the length of the structure. <br />Gustafson stated the concern at the previous Planning Commission dealt with the long wall, which has <br />since been modified to have a jog and a short stone wall. <br />PAGE2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.