Laserfiche WebLink
-Qpr <br />QRaNCt <br />City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ <br />F) The proposed improvements would increase hardcover in <br />the 75-250' zone from the approximately 38.2% hardcover <br />allowed in past approvals up to 43.9%. Only 25% hardcover <br />is normally allowed in the 75-250' zone. <br />G) The Planning Commission on November 20, 1989 <br />recommended approval of the 6' fence, finding that it <br />replaces a pre-existing 6' high stockade fence in the same <br />location. The proposed fence will be within the property <br />boundaries. <br />H) The Planning Commission at their June 18, 1990 meeting <br />recommended denial of the excess hardcover in the 75-250' <br />zone associated with the loop driveway, finding that the <br />excessive hardcover associated with such a driveway is more <br />of a concern than the possible safety and parking issues <br />suggested by applicant as justification. <br />I) At that same meeting, Planning Commission recommended <br />that the applicant be held to the previously approved <br />hardcover (calculated by staff at 2.9% in the 0-75' zone and <br />38.2% in the 75-250' zone). Planning Commission recommended <br />that applicant revise his terrace, sidewalk, and driveway <br />proposals as necessary to accomplish this. <br />4. The applicant has indicated a secondary proposal for <br />sidewalks and driveway that retains and slightly expands the <br />existing driveway and back-up apron, includes hardcover <br />associated with terrace, sidewalks, fence pillars, and retaining <br />walls with a hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone to <br />approximately 41%. The City Council finds that the scope of <br />these proposed improvements is in keeping with the character and <br />size of the house, and the additional parking area will provide <br />for greater safety. <br />5. The Council finds that the proposed terrace construction in <br />the 0-75' zone, with the associated hardcover, will act merely to <br />replace a pre-existing deck in approximately the same location, <br />that the proposed terrace will be of less square footage and of <br />greater setback from the lake than the previously existing deck, <br />and that the applicant's intended temporary removal of the old <br />circular deck was understandable since that deck as it existed <br />had been previously approved, hence applicant should not be <br />Page 3 of 7