My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
12-08-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 10:43:12 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 10:39:02 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.
/
444
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
1 <br />52 <br />^Oa <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION d <br />Date: December 4,1997^'^QV<0 <br />Item No. <br />Department Approval: Administrator Approval: <br />Name: Michael P. GafTron <br />Title: Senior Planning Coordinator <br />Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: #2264 Janet Kieman, 1491 Shoreline Drive - Variances - Update <br />- Request for Direction <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Resolution #3946 <br />B - Approved Site Plan <br />C - Building Permit <br />D - Staff Memo 8/21/97 <br />Summary of Issue <br />The applicant was granted variances in August for lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback, side <br />setback, and hardcover for remodeling of and additions to the existing residence. One of the <br />resolution findings that resulted in approval was that 40% of the existing house would remain; the <br />end result would be that 20% of the final product would consist of the pre-existing house. However, <br />it now £q)pears that perhaps less than 5% of the existing house will remain, and this may not be what <br />Council intended, hence the job has been stopped. <br />Discussion <br />In June 1997 the applicant was advised that her plans to remove the entire superstructure and re-use <br />only a portion of the foundation would be considered as a total rebuild, requiring adherence to <br />conforming setbacks. Applicant did not want to move the proposed location to meet setbacks, and <br />because Planning Commission indicated compliance would be necessary, the item was tabled so <br />she could consider her options. <br />Applicant then submitted plans indicating that a substantial portion of the house would be saved. <br />Staff concluded from the submittal that roughly 40% would remain, and this included a substantial <br />amount of the superstructure. Council ultimately accepted this percentage as sufficient to consider <br />this as a 'remodel' project rather than as a total reconstruction, thus avoiding the need for a lot area <br />variance and conformance to setback standards. <br />However, after the approval, removals gradually occurred to a point where staff was barely <br />is
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.