My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 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.
/
373
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 <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15, 2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Delaney asked if a porch ar a deck can be added to the Woodhill side. <br /> Curtis stated the two porches and deck are part of the footprint of the house and are included in the <br /> structural coverage number. <br /> Delaney stated in her view the project needs further consideration given the driveway and setback <br /> situation. Delaney stated she would also ask that the Rokkes be given a chance to look at the plans in <br /> person. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated the first point she would like to make is that it is an improvement in terms of the setbacks <br /> from what is existing. Leskinen noted the proposed street side setback is a vast improvement since the <br /> existing house is as close as 13.5 feet from Orono Orchard. <br /> Thiesse asked if the engineer has looked at the driveway and whether it is in conformance. <br /> Curtis indicated it is. <br /> Leskinen stated the only issues are the lot area, lot width, and the side setback variances since the other <br /> parts of the proposal meet code. <br /> Schoenzeit stated as it relates to the house to the north, as long as it is out of the setback,the house is <br /> compliant. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view due process is important and that the neighbors should have a say. Thiesse <br /> asked if they would be able to comment during the Council meeting. <br /> Curtis stated the public is usually allowed to speak. <br /> McGrann stated the Council can choose to table the application based on the neighbors comments or go <br /> forward. <br /> Page 35 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.