My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
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 />Monday, June 13,2005 <br />7:00 o ’clock p.m. <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 how the current footprint is calculated. <br />Oafron stated every portion that has foundation and floor has been included but that the second story is <br />not counted as additional footprint. <br />Murphy inquired why the underground garage portion is included in the footprint. <br />Gaffron stated it is considered structure fiem a building code perspective. Gaffron stated the two main <br />reasons for the oversize accessory structure ordinance deals with the appearance of the structure and the <br />future use of the structure. <br />White stated he is willing to agree to a smaller footprint because a portion of the building is located <br />underground. <br />Murphy inquired what the City was attempting to accomplish with the oversized accessory structure <br />ordiiumce. <br />Oaffion stated the ordmance addresses the size of the building and the total number of square feet that <br />could be constructed on a lot, with the future use of the structure also being a concern. <br />Murphy inquired whether the lower level could be considered a second building. <br />McMillan noted they are requesting more than what is allowed for this size lot. <br />Carlson stated the variance is necessary if the outlot is not considered in the calculation for land area. <br />Gafflon stated the ordinance does not address whether an outlot and/or wetlands should be included in the <br />calculation of land area. Gaflron stated if the Council concludes tliat the primary reason for the ordinance <br />is the visual impact and that the wetlands are a mitigating factor, the Council could find justification for <br />granting a variance. <br />Carlson inquired whether the outlot could be combined. <br />Gaffron stated normally Ihe City does not give credit for outlots. Gaffron stated this portion of the <br />property was platted as an outlot in order to achieve a 200-foot lot width along Fox Street. <br />PAGE 10 <br />itirr-iT-rflhi i^iin
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.