My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-12-1988 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
12-12-1988 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/13/2025 1:24:02 PM
Creation date
10/13/2025 1:05:40 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.
/
643
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 #1337 <br />September 29, 1988 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Exhibit G notes the location of curb lines for Crystal Place and <br />Navarre Avenue and the triangular space that is allowed no <br />obstructions. It appears that the proposed garage would not not cause <br />a visibility problem For this intersection. <br />6. City records do not indicate whether the sewer connection was made on <br />the sewer stub on Lot 9 at Crystal Place or on Lot 10 at Crystal <br />Place. Applicant should verify that the sewer connection used the <br />easterly stub, since if the westerly stub was used, the garage would <br />appear to be over that private sewer line, making future repairs <br />problematic. <br />Discussion - <br />Given the tenor of contemporary zoning codes for the LR-lC district, <br />approval of a garage in the proposed location would be quite unusual, <br />unless this was a lakeshore lot, in which case it would be quite normal. <br />In a case such as this, Planning Commission must carefully weigh the <br />hardships noted by the applicant against the potential visual effect such a <br />structure will have on the character of the surrounding neighborhood. It <br />would be unusual for, the Planning Commission to consider the "extremely <br />high costs of site grading" as a legitimate hardship, although applicant <br />certainly may feel that the grading and potential need to remove existing <br />amenities is not reasonable. <br />Also, Planning Commission must consider whether placement of a garage <br />in the proposed location would decrease the light, air, and open space in <br />the neighborhood. Certainly what now appears to be a large park -like lawn <br />area will be visually affected by a garage structure. <br />It is not clear to staff whether applicant definitely proposes to <br />remove the existing garage if the proposed garage is constructed. If that <br />garage is removed, does that help justify the new proposed garage location? <br />Finally, please consider whether the statements of hardship shown by <br />the applicant are hardships created by the property owner rather than <br />hardships inherent with the property. Consider whether a new gara(-e <br />located say 5' from the south lot line in place of the existing garage, <br />would be more appropriate. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.