My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
8/25/2025 12:59:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
4/25/1988
Retention Effective Date
8/25/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
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.
/
439
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
To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members n.F�� 2 51 . <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: April 20, 1988 <br />Subject: #1244 Dale C. Palm, 1710 Shadywood Road - <br />Variance - Final Review <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit <br />A - <br />Applicant's Letter <br />Exhibit <br />B - <br />Original Staff Mewo <br />Exhibit <br />C - <br />Hardcover Site Plan <br />Exhibit <br />D - <br />Planning Commission <br />Exhibit <br />E - <br />Council Notice <br />Exhibit <br />F - <br />Denial Resolution <br />and Sketch <br />Approved with Original Application <br />Minutes of 3/14/88, 3/28/88 <br />Staff has the follo,ing comments regarding the statements and claims made <br />.y the applicant in their recent submittal. <br />The staff member that accepted the second variance application of the Palms <br />was very candid and admitted at the filing that the application could have <br />a slim chance of being approved because of the precedent setting aspect. <br />If Council would review the original site plan (Exhibit C) that designated <br />the hazdrover areas to be removed as a result of the new construction, <br />these areas were already accounted for in the final hardcover calculations. <br />The family room has been setback 2' and is not in line with the remaining <br />front/lakeside of the house. Council may consider allowing the bulkhead <br />dour to remain consisting of 41 s.f. for d total hardcover within the 0-75' <br />setback area at 1,139 s.f. or 17.3% (Total hardcover adjusted to account <br />for 52 s.f.. of structural hardcover not installed). Planning Commission <br />moved to maintain hardcover within the 0-75' setback area at no greater <br />than 17.5%, such action would be consistant with the Planning Commissions <br />recommendation. <br />The applicants make reference to neighbors that have approved the proposed <br />keeping of the detached garage scheduled for removal. Staff must advise <br />that throughout this review, one of the neighbors has kept in close contact <br />with s*aff in order to he assured that the garage was going to be removed <br />and that if there was any sign on the part of the Council to allow such <br />structure to remain, that the individual would like the chance to either <br />appear before Council or submit something for the public record tit, would <br />state this position of opposition to maintaining such stricture. We have <br />received no other written confirmation that neighbors are in support of the <br />maintainance of the detached structure. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.