My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
01-27-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 2:25:12 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 2:19:30 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.
/
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
Zoning File #2195 <br />Januarj' 16,1997 <br />Page 5 <br />5.Given the proposed decrease or increase in hardcover on the site (dependent on the level of <br />parking lot expansion ultimately required), does Planning Commission feel there is adequate <br />hardship jusufication for hardcover expansion if required? Does the expanded storm water <br />ponding facility adequately mitigate any additional hardcover that will result from parking <br />expansion? <br />6.If the variances needed for this project are not granted, applicants intend to remodel the <br />existing building. However, the potential uses of that building are still limited by parking <br />.cquiremcnts for various activities occurring at the marina. Is the proposed office/sales <br />building, and proposed parking Int/storm water revisions, ultimately a better use of this site <br />than simply remodeling the existing 2 story structure? <br />7.Does Planning Commission concur that the operational aspects of the applicants proposal <br />should be incorporated as conditions of approval in the resolution if this project is <br />approved? This would formalize both the applicants' intended use of the site and the City's <br />basis for approval, which would be beneficial information for future site owners and/or City <br />Councils... <br />Staff Recommendation <br />As noted in November, Planning Commission should consider whethei each of the <br />proposed/requested variances is adequately supported and justified by hardships. Planning <br />Commission should consider whether the alternative of not granting the variances results irt a lost <br />opportunity to bring the site into some degree of greater conformity. Because Planning Commission <br />has recommended denial of expanded parking on the west side of County Road 15, there obviously <br />is greater pressure to accommodate parking needs on the east side. <br />Planning Commission should address the following items in your recommendation: <br />Lot area and depth variances. <br />Variance for number of parking stalls, or requirement to expand parking lot by 3 <br />stalls or 10 stalls. <br />Continued variance for parking on opposite side of road from area served, <br />l.akeshore setback variance for new building. <br />Street setback variance for new building. <br />1 lardcovv ' variance. <br />Variance to allow boat storage in required yard. <br />Landscaping provisions. <br />Confirmation of proposed amenities, i.e. sanitar>' fa' ilities for slip customers, <br />screening and continued use of satellite toilets on the Tanager Lake side, provision <br />of boat head pumpout facility, provision of storm water management facilities, <br />replacement of trees, building facade and design, etc. <br />Site operation proposal as a condition of approval. <br />Any other specific conditions of approval Planning Commission feels are necessary.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.