My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 10:43:33 AM
Creation date
1/11/2023 10:24:46 AM
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.
/
309
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
Planning Staff Rccommcmlatioii <br />Although the majority of the Planning Commission concluded that the large 0-75’ area and relatively <br />small 75’- 250’ area is a hardship to the property; SlalT is not convinced that the level of 36.8% or <br />even 36% is warranted for this specific rebuild. Council should discass the merits of this request and <br />reach a conclusion as to what level of hardcover is appropriate to the site. Staff also feels that Council <br />should review this proposal as a “footprint ” rather than a rambler or two-story, as either could be <br />constructed on this property. <br />Planning Department Staff continues to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback <br />variance. Staff believes that the size of the 75’-250* zone (7,673 s.f.) which at 25% would allow only <br />1,918 s.f. of hardcover, is an inlicrent hardship, fhe city has generally established that for very small <br />lots, the minimum rea.sonable garage/liouse footprint is 1,500 s.f.. It is likely impossible to construct a <br />1,500 s.f. house on this site within the 25% limit. I'herefore staff will conceptually support a 1,500 s.f <br />home with the minimal decks, sidewalk and driveway needed to support it, but we think this can be <br />done in the range of 30% hardcover, not 36%. We are not convinced that the 3 ”* garage stall is <br />necessary. <br />Council Action Requested <br />Options include: <br />1. Accept the current plan and direct Staff to drafi a resolution reflecting Council’s action for <br />adoption at your January meeting; or <br />2. Reject the current plan and again provide the applicant with guidance; or <br />3. Otlicr.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.