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 aTY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Moaday, Jaae 13,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.ni. <br />(#05-3114 Sever aad Sharoo Petersoa, Coatiaaed) <br />Murphy inquired what is necessary to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent <br />Gaffron iUustrated the portion of the driveway that is not necessary to access this property, noting that <br />that hardcover amount has not been included in the calculation. Gaffixm stated one option discussed at <br />die Planning Commission was turning that section of the property into an outlet. Gaffron stated the <br />policy could be forcing the property owners into a hardship situation. Gaffron stated if that portion of the <br />property was considered an oudot, the amount of hardcover with this in-oposal would be calculated at 21 <br />percent. <br />McNeil pointed out their proposal reduces the amount of hardcover to 27.4 percent on the property from <br />32.7 percent hardcover. McNeil noted that a large portion of the driveway does not need to be used by <br />the Petersons, and that if the driveway were reduced to nine feet wide, they would be below the 25 <br />percent hardcover limit. <br />McNeil stated they are willing to reduce a portion of the driveway and that they are asking the Council to <br />review the policy and only count the driveway as being nine feet in width in determining this property <br />owner’s hardcover calculation. <br />Murphy inquired what the actual hardcover on this lot would be if everything is counted. <br />Gaffron stated it would be 27.4 percent. Gaffron indicated if the shared driveway portion is removed, the <br />hardcover would be approximately 21 percent. <br />Mr. Peterson stated they feel it is an unfair burden to have to include the extra width of the driveway in <br />their hardcover calculation that is required as part of a shared driveway. Peterson noted the lagoon also <br />should be considered a hardship in the need for an average lake setback variance. <br />Gaffron stated the lagoon does impact this property. <br />Petmon stated die lagoon was artificially created and has caused a hardship. <br />Murphy inquired wh.dier the house footprint could be reduced another three percent. <br />O’Neil indicated they have reduced the hardcover on the lot with their proposal and that if they are <br />required to reduce the footprint by another three percent, they would be left with a house that is smaller <br />than what currently exists. O’Neil noted they are also improving the sight lines for some of the neighbors <br />with their proposal. O’Neil stated they could avoid the need for a variance by reducing the driveway by <br />seven feet hut that it might be a policy issue. <br />Murphy stated in his opinion given the number of homes that utilize this driveway, it should probably be <br />considered a road. Murphy noted the amount of hardcover on this lot is being reduced with the <br />applicants’ proposal.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.