My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-16-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
09-16-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:07:45 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:07:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
36
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, September 16, 2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued <br /> suggestion and return with a plan this month that meets those requirements. She admitted that <br /> the Commission had obviously failed to spell out the limitations imposed by the northwest lot <br /> line and the traveled roadway. <br /> Bremer suggested the applicant table the application in order to redesign the prow to meet these <br /> requirements. <br /> Chair Smith explained that, if the applicant preferred, the Planning Commission could act on <br /> what was in front of them and send it on to Council; however, it sounded to her as if it would not <br /> meet with their recommendation for approval. <br /> Hawn pointed out that, if the applicant chooses to go on to Council without a recommendation <br /> for approval, there is the possibility that the City Council would table the application and send it <br /> back to the Planning Commission for further discussion. <br /> Chair Smith indicated that the Planning Commission could support the side yard setback <br /> variance and the parking spot. <br /> Weinberger pointed out that the parameters set in the original resolution never allowed an <br /> encroachment closer than 50'. <br /> Berg stated that the only existing issue is that the applicant does not have an acceptable setback <br /> from the driveway. She asked what number they could give to the applicant for direction. <br /> Weinberger indicated that 35' plus or minus 6 inches would be an acceptable setback figure. <br /> Chair Smith reviewed that the applicant would be allowed a side yard setback variance, require a <br /> 35' driveway setback, 50' lakeshore setback measured from the overhang, and up to 660' s.f. of <br /> hardcover. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the applicant and Commission would be more comfortable with a <br /> driveway setback measurement that keeps the home in line with the neighboring garages. <br /> Rahn agreed that an average rear setback, no closer than those of the average neighbors setback, <br /> be used as the setback requirement. <br /> Weinberger stated that the February approval had referenced the same driveway setback <br /> requirement as the original home. <br /> Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2813, Mark <br /> Welsh, 3625 North Shore Drive, requiring the same setback as required by the February <br /> approval mandating no encroachment into the 50' lakeshore setback; and a rear setback in <br /> PAGE 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.