My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
01/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/15/2012 3:31:50 PM
Creation date
5/15/2012 3:31:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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 /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (Recess taken at 7:27 p.m.—7:33 p.m.) <br /> OLD BUSINESS <br /> 4. MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCE, 7:33 P.M.—7:50 P.M. <br /> Mark Palm,Applicant,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances to replace an attached garage. The <br /> Planning Commission did review this application previously and had made a number of suggestions to the <br /> applicant. <br /> The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to permit 34.51 percent hardcover within the 75-250' <br /> zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 38 percent currently exists; two, a hardcover variance to <br /> permit 57 percent hardcover within the 250'-500 zone where 30 percent is normally allowed and 49.5 <br /> percent currently exists; and three, a side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of five feet <br /> where 15 feet is normally required for a detached building in excess of 750 square foot and a 1.5 foot <br /> setback currently exists. <br /> The applicant submitted a revised survey in early December with revised hardcover calculations <br /> submitted on January 6"'. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised survey and has provided comments <br /> contained in Exhibit C. <br /> From Staff's perspective,the revised plan does not address any of the issues noted on the Planning <br /> Commission Action Notice except for moving the garage closer to the road but not to the 15 feet <br /> suggested by Staff. The applicant has not reduced the size of the garage to less than 750 square feet or <br /> met a 10-foot setback. <br /> Staff recommends the application be tabled to allow the applicant to incorporate the recommendations of <br /> the Planning Commission at their last meeting. <br /> Palm stated this application has been going on since 2002, and he has had many discussions with Staff <br /> concerning his application. Palm stated he had to delay action on his application due to the 10,000 square <br /> foot house constructed next doar and the water runoff issues. Palm indicated those issues have since been <br /> resolved by the installation of a gutter. Palm stated he did not want to proceed further on the garage until <br /> those issues were addressed, which has resulted in some delay in his application. <br /> Palm indicated as far as not complying with the requirements,he had the understanding he did provide <br /> what was required to Planner Gundlach. Palm stated Gronberg was retained and those surveys were <br /> supposed to have been provided to the City. <br /> Palm stated his situation is unique in that there is a hill coming in and out of the driveway,which makes it <br /> difficult to maneuver a car into a garage when it is icy or snowy out. Palm stated the rock wall that was <br /> constructed was for decoration but that he would be willing to alter it if need be in order to push the <br /> PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.