My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-18-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
11-18-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:11:35 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:11:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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,November 18, 2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#5) #02-2846 LOREN PELLETT, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued <br /> Mabusth stated that she was surprised more property owners don't come forward to <br /> vacate and legally combine parcels such as this. <br /> Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2846, <br /> Loren Pellett, approving the vacation application as proposed for the property <br /> located at 4753 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> (#6) #02-2847 JAMES NYSTROM, 1725 CONCORDIA STREET CONDITIONAL <br /> USE PERMIT 7:06 - 7:20 P.M. <br /> Kyle Hunt, General Contractor for the Applicant, was present. <br /> Bottenberg reported that the applicant had requested a conditional use permit to permit a <br /> cupola to be constructed on a new residence. The proposed cupola is to be located within <br /> the central portion of the structure and mimic a cupola on the garage. Bottenberg <br /> explained that, while the cupola on the garage meets the 30' height requirement, the <br /> cupola on the residence is proposed to be 34.5' in height and 4'X4' in size. <br /> Bottenberg pointed out that the cupola does not change the lot coverage by structure or <br /> hardcover on the property. As purely decorative, the cupola would not be used for living <br /> space, therefore, the height limitations imposed by other sections of the code may be <br /> increased by conditional use permit by 50%when applied to structures, such as cupolas <br /> and domes, church spires, belfries, etc. <br /> Chair Smith inquired what constituted the"etc." in the code. <br /> Bottenberg pointed out that there was a specific list of some twenty items in the code, <br /> although staff had chosen not to print the entire list, and instead used the term etc., <br /> perhaps improperly. <br /> Gaffron maintained that the intent of the City, in approximately 1967, was to generally <br /> allow certain features, which are typically higher than the house, used purely for <br /> decorative purposes, or which serve a specific function. <br /> Chair Smith asked if this would be a purely aesthetic feature. <br /> PAGE 5 of 29 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.