My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
03/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:24:16 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:24:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 MEETING <br /> Monday, March 17, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) <br /> Adams offered to remove or reduce the patio deck on the lower lakeside of the home in <br /> lieu of removing driveway. <br /> Berg pointed out that applicants cannot trade non-conforming structures for conforming <br /> space. In fact, she believed the patio should be removed altogether. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the applicant would prefer they table the application. <br /> Berg argued that, during the February meeting, the Commission gave direction to the <br /> applicants representative which required removals in the 0-75' setback. These removals did <br /> not occur and the Commission is once again asking for the same thing. <br /> Chair Smith asked the Commission what they could live with based on what was in front <br /> of them. Although more hardcover reductions were necessary, she asked if the house, the <br /> removal of the bay window, removal of the lakeside patio, and pulling the porch back from <br /> the 0-75' was acceptable to the Commission. <br /> Based on discussion held in February, Rahn stated that he could not accept the bay <br /> window,when the direction was given that nothing be added to the 0-75' setback. <br /> Adams asked if the driveway were reduced, could the Commission allow the house as <br /> presented. <br /> Berg pointed out that the two issues were unrelated. <br /> Adams stated that the deck and screen porch are 3' off the ground and require steps to <br /> access them and the sliding door. He believed that he was presenting less than the previous <br /> application. <br /> Chair Smith stated that the Commission felt more reductions were necessary. She was <br /> hesitant to redesign the proposal further this evening. <br /> Adams asked for further direction with regard to how much percentage needed to be <br /> removed. <br /> Overall, the Commission could accept the deck off the screened porch, however, would not <br /> allow the bay window. Further, they wished to see more reductions in hardcover from the <br /> driveway. <br /> Chair Smith suggested the applicant work with staff to elongate the circle greenspace. <br /> PAGE 5 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.