My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
10/17/2005 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2012 9:38:06 AM
Creation date
3/9/2012 9:38:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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,October 17,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3157 Martha Mason,Continued) <br /> Fritzler inquired whether it would be attached to the house in any way, shape, or form. <br /> Mason stated it would not be attached. <br /> Rahn stated the plan appears to depict it as being attached. Rahn inquired if the floor plan has changed. <br /> Mason stated the floor plan has changed. <br /> Gaffron stated in the past the City has treated freestanding pergolas as an accessory structure that cannot <br /> be any closer to the street than the existing house. Gaffron stated in his opinion the Planning Commission <br /> should deal with the trellis as well. <br /> Rahn commented in his view the pergola,if it exceeded six feet in height,would also be considered <br /> structural coverage. <br /> Bremer inquired whether a trellis purchased from Home Depot would be considered structure. <br /> Rahn stated it would be. <br /> Gaffron stated if it is not attached,then it is considered an accessory structure. <br /> Rahn stated typically the Planning Commission requests that any additions to the house meet the required <br /> setbacks. <br /> Leslie stated the last time this type of issue was before the Planning Commission the Commission was <br /> looking for the addition to be no further encroaching than the house but noted the Council passed the <br /> addition further encroaching into the front yard setback but keeping the same line as the existing <br /> structure. Leslie stated based on that,he would be inclined to accept the addition but not the pergola. <br /> Mason stated they are prepared to forego the pergola and that they are in agreement with the comments <br /> made by Commissioner Leslie. <br /> Fritzler stated the applicant is adding more massing than just six inches because it is six inches at two <br /> stories. <br /> Mason stated when you speak of massing,you look at the 12-foot addition being ten percent of the length <br /> of the entire house and that they are proposing to add something that is restrained and modest. <br /> Fritzler stated his view is only focused on the area of the 50-foot setback and that the rest of the house is <br /> not an issue. <br /> Mason stated the design constraints relate to function,practicality and design. <br /> PAGE 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.