My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
07-08-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2024 10:32:41 AM
Creation date
6/25/2024 10:24:37 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.
/
483
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
f.- <br />Applicant's general contractor! in order to obtain a <br />permit! provided a plan showing less than 25% fvnal <br />hardcover in the 0-75' zone, which plan was approved by <br />the City staff and the general contractor completed the <br />necessary removals in a timely manner. <br />Midway through the project, the general contractor <br />ceased involvement with the project. The applicant <br />proceeded to act as general contractor and had a new <br />driveway and entrywalk constructed with no review by <br />the City. When the property owner was notified that <br />the hardcover now exceeded the limits agreed to <br />previously, the applicant claimed she was unaware of <br />any previously agreed to hardcover limitations but <br />would present a plan for hardcover removals to meet the <br />Code requirements. Applicant attempted to come up with <br />a plan that would leave a functional driveway, allow <br />for decks on the lake side of the house, yet not result <br />in the need to remov.- the elaborate front entry <br />sidewalks already completed. <br />Planning Commission finds that the above noted <br />circumstances, the fact that the proposed plan still <br />results in a significant net decrease in 75-250' <br />hardcover, and the fact that this is a large lot and <br />while half of the lot is in the 0-75' zone, there is <br />less than 1% hardcover existing or proposed in that <br />zone, combine to provide adequate justification for <br />granting of the proposed 1.2% hardcover variance. <br />4.The City Council has considered this application in luding <br />the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, <br />reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the <br />effect of the proposed variance on th<=^ health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply gen« -.'ally to <br />other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br />variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, <br />light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to <br />neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate <br />Page 2 of 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.