My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-28-2006 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2006
>
08-28-2006 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:36:25 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 4:36:25 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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 28, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. • <br />( #06 -3206 Ken and LoriJean Anderson, Continued) <br />Sansevere inquired whether the homeowners association could sell the lot. <br />Gaffron stated in his view it would be highly unlikely since all 14 property owners would need to agree to <br />the sale, but that he would need to review the documents to verify whether the .lot could be sold. <br />Sansevere commented he would like to remain consistent on the deck and side yard setback, but that he <br />would like to see the applicants have a bigger portion of the deck be located in the sun. <br />Turner stated it was Staff's view that a 12 -foot deck, which includes the stairs, was reasonable and <br />useable. <br />Murphy noted given the location of the house, the applicants are already over the hardcover limits even if <br />they do reduce the size of the deck. Murphy noted the structure would still be located 25 feet from Forest <br />Lake Drive. <br />Danbury stated in order to retain the deck, Mr. Anderson had proposed to remove other hardcover. <br />Anderson stated if they do not get approval for the size of deck they are proposing, they probably would . <br />not proceed forward with the addition of the second story. <br />Murphy inquired why there is a Plan A and a Plan B. <br />Turner stated she recalls that the applicant had proposed both Plan A and B, with Plan A being to add the <br />second story and to square off the garage in accordance with the direction of the Planning Commission. <br />Additional hardcover reductions were also proposed. The applicants have indicated if the squaring off of <br />the garage were an issue, they would still like to proceed forward with the second story, the hardcover <br />removals, and leaving the deck as is. Turner stated the deck is high enough that it would be considered <br />structural coverage. <br />Murphy inquired whether any variances would be required if the applicants just added a second story. <br />Turner stated there would be a variance for the 0 -75 foot setback because they would be increasing the <br />structural coverage. <br />Murphy noted the second story would be within the existing building envelope and the deck would not <br />need to be touched. Murphy stated when people demonstrate good faith and attempt to work with the <br />City, he would look favorably upon that. Murphy indicated he would support reducing the hardcover as <br />shown, reducing the deck to 24 feet, adding the second story, but that he does not see a hardship for <br />squaring .off the garage. <br />Sansevere noted he also is not in favor of squaring off of the garage. Sansevere inquired how Staff <br />arrived at the recommendation for a 12 -foot deck. • <br />PAGE 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.