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 asked if he could be allowed to construct the bay window within the roofline. He <br /> felt the home would look like a box without the bay window addition. <br /> Rahn stated that the bay window would be allowed if the encroachment did not currently <br /> exist and it was in a conforming location. <br /> Berg stated that the Commission could move or table the application <br /> Adams asked for the motion. <br /> Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application#03-2867, <br /> Dan Adams, 1145 Tonkawa Road, granting approval for structure within 75' of the <br /> lakeshore to allow the second story addition construction, 17' encroachment into the <br /> average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 0-75' setback, and structure within the <br /> 75-250' setback variances to allow a second story addition over the existing residence <br /> and garage with the following conditions: <br /> 1. The bay window be eliminated. <br /> 2. The patio on the lower lakeside level be reduced by half. <br /> 3. The screen porch and deck be allowed to remain. <br /> 4. The driveway be reduced to some degree, as suggested by Planning Director <br /> Gaffron on the overhead drawing. <br /> 5. If during construction it is determined that the portion of the foundation within <br /> the 75' setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the <br /> Planning Commission and the City Council for further review. <br /> 6. If the larger deck located by the lakeshore should need repairs or replacement, it <br /> is non-conforming and would need the necessary approvals to remain. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> Bottenberg asked Berg to address the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. <br /> Berg amended her motion to reflect that no further encroachments into the average <br /> lakeshore setback should ever be allowed in the future. Fritzler seconded the <br /> amended motion. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> NEW BUSINESS <br /> (#2) #02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER,480 RUSSELL AVENUE,VARIANCE <br /> 7:28-7:36 P.M. <br /> Tim Lovett, applicant's representative, was present. <br /> PAGE 6 of 24 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.