My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
02-09-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 10:27:59 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 12:32:41 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.
/
324
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
.7 . <br />Memorandum <br />Date: <br />To: <br />From: <br />RE: <br />February 2,2004 <br />City Administrator, Mayor, and Council <br />Mike GafFron, Planning Director <br />Planning Commission ’s Recommendation Regarding Project <br />M)3-2962 - Hardcover Variance <br />The Planning Commission, at their January 20,2004 meeting recommended ^proval of a <br />hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75 ’»250 ’ zone. Because this project <br />is a rebuild, I would offer the following comments: <br />From staff’s perspective, approval at 38.6% is somewhat inconsistent with Council’s <br />pattern of approvals for total rebuilds within the past S years. While the applicant has <br />reduced the proposed house to meet the 1 S% lot coverage limit, that fact in itself does not <br />justify the level of hardcover proposed. It is not uncommon that homes are reduced to a <br />level significantly less than 1S% lot coverage to meet the 2S% hardcover limit. <br />Staff feels the lot shape justification (top of pg. 4 of Jan. 20 Memo) for 32% hardcover, is <br />a reasonable method to quantify the hardship based on lot shape. A further hardship, <br />based on the limited parking area and need for a back-up apron to access Shadywood <br />Road, perhaps justifies an additional 15 ’ x 15 ’ in driveway, or perhaps another 225 s.f. <br />At best, we don’t find a justification to go above 3609 + 225 = 3834 s.f. or 33.6% for this <br />rebuild. To approve it at this level without additional unique justification will make this <br />£q>proval stand out as an anomaly and as a precedent. <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.