My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-13-2005 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
06-13-2005 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 3:50:41 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:53:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
• <br />0 <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 13, 2005 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(Jack and Kari Olson, Continued) <br />Peterson stated the applicant is looking for direction on whether this concept would be approved by the <br />city. I <br />White stated they are not able to approve something that the Planning Commission has not reviewed. <br />g pp g i see whether the Council would be opposed to the <br />long rather than two buildings.. t were looking t <br />Moorse stated it appears that the Council is fine with, attaching the garage but that they would prefer to <br />have some input from the Planning Commission and whether the amount of structural coverage should be <br />reduced. <br />Murphy pointed out the applicant's detached garage was approved and that he does have the option of <br />bringing a new application before the Planning Commission to get their input on the new design. Murphy <br />indicated he would have trouble supporting the new proposal given the amount of massing on the lot. <br />Olson stated everyone he has spoken to have indicated that they prefer the garage attached due to <br />appearance and the fact that there would be water runoff between the two structures. Olson stated he <br />would like to know whether this proposal is a viable, option. <br />White stated if the applicants can meet the 15 percent structural coverage, it probably would be approved. <br />White suggested the applicant speak with Staff and with his builder to see whether some modifications <br />could be made to the plan in order to comply with tie 15 percent. <br />Murphy stated if the ten feet difference between the Lo is the kitchen and the bathroom, it might not be <br />worth it. I <br />Olson stated it is not an option for him to relocate <br />Gaffron stated the roofline for the detached garage <br />Murphy stated the garage could be turned the other <br />Peterson suggested the applicant speak with Staff <br />the appearance of massing on the lot if the garage <br />White indicated he prefers the attached garage <br />The City Council took no formal action on this <br />kitchen and bathroom. <br />match the rooflne for the house. <br />to achieve the look of two different buildings. <br />-ther on this proposal, but that she has an issue with <br />attached. <br />than two separate structures. <br />PAGE 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.