My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
07-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2012 3:52:53 PM
Creation date
7/5/2012 3:52:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
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
t <br /> � MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, June 18, 2007 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (5.#07-3293 GEORGE STICKNEY FOR BRUCE PADDOCK,Continued) <br /> significant home anywhere else in Orono on a smaller lot, as the comparisons within the packet <br /> show. <br /> Kroger stated that the plan seemed to be designed to be as close to the 75' zone as possible.He <br /> questioned whether the garage could be placed back further on the site near where the existing pool <br /> is situated currently. <br /> Sticlrney stated that they were considering putting in rain gardens near the pool area once it is <br /> removed.With regard to the garage placement, Sticlrney stated that the neighbors had expressed <br /> their desire that the home, and its amenities,be kept low profile, closer to ground level, so that it ' <br /> does not appear overpowering from the lake or street.He pointed out that they were preserving the <br /> bluff and improving the current situation,in which the home encroaches significantly into the 0-75' <br /> zone. <br /> Gaffron stated that,it would be fair to say,that the current proposal does not reflect the finished <br /> site plan or grading plan.He pointed out that if the garage was added where proposed the applicant <br /> would be filling in a low area.He indicated that the applicant was looking for more direction at this <br /> time and whether the Commission felt this to be a reasonable plan or if there were ways he could <br /> mitigate the hardcover. <br /> Charles Hanesworth, Charles Cud Homes, stated that the applicant would be generating a <br /> tremendous amount of fill from excavating the basement for the house; therefore,the amount of fill <br /> necessary to bring in might not be as high as estimated. <br /> Zullo stated that she did not believe there was a hardship for this lot, as it was part of a large piece <br /> of property prior to the division,which the applicant created and imposed upon himself.As the <br /> hardship was made or created by the applicant by adding the roads and cul-de-sacs for the <br /> adj oining lots,Zullo felt the applicant must work within the guidelines of this newly formed lot. <br /> She stated that she would vote to deny the applications request. <br /> Chair Kempf questioned the need for so much driveway hardcover.He felt there was a tremendous <br /> amount of unnecessary hardcover.While the point lot is a hardship,Kempf felt the applicant could <br /> make reasonable use with less hardcover. <br /> Kroger concurred. <br /> Winer stated that she believed the hardcover was too high,but that she did not have enough <br /> information to make an informed decision. She suggested the applicant do more soil testing and <br /> stated that she would not be surprised if the grading work proved to be more than the applicant <br /> recognized. <br /> Sticlmey stated that the lot has good soil and that he would bring the proof to attest to it at an <br /> upcoming meeting. . <br /> Chair Kempf asked if the Commission had more direction for the applicants. <br /> PAGE 5 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.