My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
09-10-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2024 1:26:05 PM
Creation date
12/10/2024 1:24:17 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.
/
450
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 #1334 Augti 9, 1990 <br />Pac 4 <br />.ously, the procedure recominended by the Planning <br />CommiS4Sj.on is viewed as a major obstacle to the processing of <br />building permits by the developer and the developer asks Council <br />for special consideration. <br />In an attempt to present a compromise position for Council's <br />consideration, staff has asked the City Engineer to develop <br />design criteria for driveways and backout aprons within the 50' <br />front street setback yard designed to minimize impact on the <br />setback area. Please review Exhibits H and I, the illustrations <br />I-l through 1-4 depict drives and backout aprons for three car <br />garages (Sugarwoods covenants requires 3 car garages). Note that <br />the drives have been adopted to fit the two typical designs for <br />three car garage openings. I-l represents a minimum turning <br />movement required for a car parked in front of a garage stall to <br />backup, turn and drive forward onto the street. 1-2 through 1-4 <br />are interchangeable designs and may be reversed without affecting <br />the layout. Note the engineer has also provided the amount of <br />area needed for these improvements; 1-2 at 1,618.64 s.f.; 1-3 at <br />1,590.46 s.f.; and 1-4 at 1,508.21 s.f. It would be staff's <br />recommendation that if a builder provides satisfactory evidence <br />to the reviewing staff that specific site conditions necessitate <br />house at setback line that either one of the design presented by <br />the Engineer will be acceptable without further review by the <br />Planning Commission or Council. If the builder wishes to provide <br />other improvements outside those allowed within the approved <br />illustrations, than they must appeal their position to the <br />Planning Commission and Council. The builder would also be given <br />a right of appeal if staff found that the specific site <br />conditions did not warrant the placement of the house at the <br />setback line. <br />Staff sent this memo to both the Chairman and Co-Chairman of <br />the Planning Commission. Staff will ask for their comments prior <br />to the meeting. Co-chair Bellows will be the Planning Commission <br />representative at your meeting and will be available for comment.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.