My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-22-2012 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2012
>
10-22-2012 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 12:22:12 PM
Creation date
4/7/2015 3:49:50 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
251
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, October 8, 2012 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 10 of 21 <br /> <br />(8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued) <br /> <br />the City is willing to help them by granting small incremental changes in order to allow a useful deck. <br />Walsh commented a deck in the front tends to destroy the view of the home. <br /> <br />Bremer asked how the plans the City Council received tonight are different from what was before the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Sharratt indicated the deck was originally designed to be 12’ x 17’. The applicants late last week received <br />an engineering review letter and that they have attempted to draft a response to his concerns. Sharratt <br />indicated he is in agreement that the driveway was too steep at 11 percent. To lower the grade of the <br />driveway, some risers have been placed on the first floor with steps going down from the garage into the <br />house. Raising the garage results in a 2.8’ foot drop from the edge of the road and creates a 6.3 percent <br />slope. The basement floor elevation rose by six inches. The reason the house can only be raised six <br />inches is to meet the 50 percent rule. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the deck would be 12’ x 7’ if it were to meet the 10-foot setback. <br /> <br />Sharratt indicated it would be 7’ x 17’. <br /> <br />McMillan commented it would still be a fairly substantial deck but that it would be rather narrow. <br />McMillan noted there is not a stairway coming off the deck. <br /> <br />Sharratt indicated there is not a deck stairway and that they have to go back into the house to go out on <br />the yard. <br /> <br />Franchot asked if the setback is denied, whether they would move the house to the east two feet to get a <br />little more space. <br /> <br />Sharratt indicated they did not get anything in writing from the neighbor but that he had indicated he <br />would not be opposed to eight feet. <br /> <br />Franchot asked if moving the house would be the reaction of the applicants to the City Council turning <br />down the setback variance. <br /> <br />Sharratt stated it would likely trigger that design change. <br /> <br />Franchot noted the other consequence of moving the house is that it would make it closer to the property <br />line on the other side where there is actual structure. <br /> <br />Bremer noted the City Council would need to approve the house relocation since it would also require a <br />variance. <br /> <br />Sharratt indicated there is no buildable area on the site that would meet all the setbacks. <br /> <br />Curtis pointed out they would need a variance to enclose above the deck but that they would not require a <br />variance to enclose the area underneath the deck. <br /> <br />Bremer asked if the intention is to enclose the area underneath the deck. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 10 of 21]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.