My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-23-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
09-23-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 12:58:10 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 12:54:49 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.
/
390
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
#2159 - Jundt <br />August 14, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />Hardcover <br />Applicants’ hardcover calculation worksheet indicates that the vast majority of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ <br />zone (including the east shoreline and west shoreline of the property) is in the public roads and <br />driveway entrances. The existing stairways, boat house, etc. account for less than 1% of the 0-75' <br />zone. <br />The hardcover calculations also include some entries which are confusing, such as showing an <br />additional 250 s.f. of driveway, as well as varying numbers for patio deck, pathways and additional <br />retaining wall. It is not clear from the plans where these hardcover increases are intended to take <br />place. Applicants or their representative should clarify the hardcover calculations. Staff has left a <br />message with the project manager requesting clarification of the hardcover calculations. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1.Given that the Shorcland Ordinance does not specifically limit the number of 4’ wide <br />stairways that can be placed on a property, but realizing that more than one such stairway per <br />property may coi.stitute excess hardcover, does Planning Commission have a concern about <br />the number of stairway systems serv ing this property? <br />2.Since the existing stairways traverse the slope at an angle rather than running directly to the <br />lake, does Planning Commission feel there is any justification to have applicant reroute the <br />staiivvays more directly to the lake? Or, is the potential visual impact of direct stairways <br />1 cssened by allowing them to angle through the wooded shoreline? <br />3.Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to justify the nearly total reconstruction of the \ <br />12'.xl2’ boat house, given its deteriorated condition raid lack of architectural significance? ) <br />4.Are the mainly cosmetic changes to the grotto area and restoration of the adjacent rock <br />retaining wall of any significant visual impact? <br />5.While applicants have not proposed removal of any vegetation related to this project, what <br />vegetative screening might be approj’r'ate to add, if any, to mitigate the impacts of the <br />retaining w all (or the boat house if proved)? <br />6.What specific hardcover increases are proposed? Are they justified by hardship? Is there any <br />hardcover in the 0-75' zone that can be removed to result in no hardcover increase? <br />\
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.