My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
06-27-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 9:48:03 AM
Creation date
1/12/2023 9:14:01 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.
/
348
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 />Moaday» Jaae 13,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.ni. <br />(#05>3111 Water Street Hobms, Coatiaaed) <br />buffer as a condition of approval. Carlson noted the portion that falls within the 26-foot setback is located <br />underground. <br />Gaffron inquired whether the driveway could be relocated slightly. <br />Carism stated the property owners would prefer not to relocate the driveway but rather reduce the amount <br />of square footage of the lower level. <br />Murphy inquired whether all variances are predicated on a hardship. <br />Barrett indicated they are. <br />Gaffron stated the variance language in part reads as follows: “Before granting a variance, the council <br />shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict <br />enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property <br />under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in <br />keeping with the q>irit and intent of this charter.” Gaffron stated a hardship needs to be demonstrated <br />and a showing that they are keeping with the spirit of the code. Gaffron indicated a number of variances <br />have been granted throughout the city and that the type and degree of hardship varies from application to <br />applicatitm. <br />Mutfdty stated one solution is to construct two smictures above ground, which may not be the best <br />solution. <br />White commented that the proposed plan looks aesthetically pleasing and makes sense for this lot. <br />McMillan inquired whether the City has other two-story accessory structures where the below grade level <br />has different footprints. <br />Gaffron indicated this type of design is unusual for the City and that Staff has not determined how much <br />fill depth is necessary for an area not to be determined as hardcover. <br />White stated he prefers this proposal rather than two separate buildings. <br />McMillan stated the issue then becomes what the square footage should be of the one structure. <br />Carlson stated the configuration of the lot is a hardship and that the design meets the spirit and intent of <br />the ordinance. <br />McMillan noted there is a fair amount of wetlands on this property that reduces the amount of dry <br />buildable land. <br />Murphy inquired bow the current fooq>rint is calculated. <br />PAGE?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.