My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-22-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
07-22-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 11:28:00 AM
Creation date
12/4/2025 11:21:24 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.
/
300
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 #876 <br />July 18, 1985 <br />Page 3 <br />3444 Eastlake Sti t - Council has ordered patio and walks in 6- <br />75' zone to be removed. Planning Commission recommenes that patio and <br />wdlk near hous . of r removed, that walk between pa"-io ind lake be <br />removed. <br />Staff wi►' note for the record that building permits were issued <br />for the houses on these properties without requiring landscaping, <br />grading, sidewalk, patio, and driveway plans and that in both cases <br />the houses used up most of the allowable hardcover; in effect, the <br />City creat the hardcover hardship by allowing the houses to be <br />built. By tht-same tuxen, the lots are of such high dol lar value that <br />it would not be realistic to expect snaller houses to have been .:;ilt, <br />remembering that it is not feasible to construct basements in this low <br />ground. The patios in the 0-75' z,ne are a separate issue, of course, <br />and it is clear that the applicant was given notice that no improve- <br />ments were allowed in the 0-75' z,ane v i a the officially approved <br />survey copy given to the builder at the time the building permit was <br />issued (stamped with regulations) and via the original subdivision <br />approval resolution filed in the chain of title which states ... "A'. <br />proposed structures and additional improvements must meet the 75' <br />;etback from the lakeshore". <br />Staff suggests that some leeway in 75-250' ::.--dciver be <br />considered for these pr.oper'.ies. As far '-,e P-75' zone is con- <br />cerned, staff would suggest that a:;j vart c:er granted for these <br />F1operties (which are "new construction" be carr.iully reviewed es to <br />the hardships involved and carefully weigi ed in light of thei <br />possible effect as a precedent. <br />Staff wilt draft a resolution for your August llth meeting --- <br />fleeting your action tonight. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.