My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
07-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 2:35:07 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 2:35:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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,July 15,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued) <br /> out of character for the area. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Mabusth questioned how they could have held true to the side yard setbacks. <br /> Hellier indicated that their goal was to be in compliance with one or two codes if possible. <br /> Mabusth questioned the 9' setback from the street and 37' setback from the creek, as well as, the <br /> very large 600 s.f. deck. <br /> Rahn had concern with the lack of allowable parking in the driveway. <br /> Mabusth suggested expanding the design further sideways in order to obtain more room by the road <br /> and in the front. She felt she could support side yard setback variances in order to gain additional <br /> room near the road. <br /> Bremer stated that she had less concern about being close to the road than she did close to the lake. <br /> With regard to neighboring residences, the proposed home seemed to her to be similar in size to <br /> 3407 or 3465. <br /> Hellier stated that 3465 was a larger home,and while designing this site they chose to stick with the <br /> bungalow style home design currently seen in the area. <br /> Bremer noted that the structural coverage was under 15%. <br /> Rahn stated that the deck was much too massive for the home at 15X40 = 600 s.f., he would be <br /> inclined to see something more reasonable. <br /> Hellier indicated that he knew he had an additional 2500 s.f. to use up and chose to do so with the <br /> deck. <br /> Bremer asked whether the Commission had a problem with the proposal as long as the applicant <br /> reduced the deck. <br /> Hawn stated that she had difficulty accepting the limited driveway space. <br /> Bremer suggested that the deck span the 30' width of the bank of windows on the back side and <br /> PAGE 31 of 36 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.