My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-26-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
08-26-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 12:02:17 PM
Creation date
12/4/2025 11:58:19 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
187
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 #852 anti #927 <br />August 21, 1985 <br />Page 5 <br />3. Location does not relate to the house use and traffic <br />patterns. <br />4. Location is risible to train and pedestrian traffic along the <br />railroad which restricts privacy. <br />The applicant asks the City to consider the area to the south of the <br />existing hou,ae/garage and requests approval of this location based on the <br />following findings and hardships: <br />1. Flat slopes adjacent to the walkout level of t►.e garage. <br />2. Close relationship to the house, showers, restroom and storage <br />while have a separation from other activity areas of the house. <br />Sunny location and orientation. <br />4. Tree cover along the lakeshore provides screening from neighbors <br />and the lake while providing privacy for the pool user. <br />Hat -cover Considerations <br />The applicant claims the only true hardcove ound the pool within <br />the 0-75' setback area is the 85 square feet of coping around U pool and <br />15 square feet of deck. The remaining improvement of some 1100 square feet <br />involves the use of grass areas and b�-)ardwalk (Exhibit G). Review Cook's <br />comments (Exhibit I), he feels the underdrain system is very preliminary in <br />nature and reluires greater detail before he could render judgement as to <br />classi` ion of hardcover but does ask that drainage tiles be directed to <br />marsh ather than lake as currently proposed. He does also contend <br />that th adequate area out of the 75 feet setback area to locate the <br />pool. <br />Plannin.�,C ision Recommendation <br />Majority opinion moved to deny the multiple variance applicatic! <br />Stanley Gregory based on the following findings: <br />1. The innovative material or construction cannot be considered nois- <br />hardcrover based on current policy. <br />2. Early planning decision made by applicant or authorized agents of <br />applicant created the need for the variance. <br />3. Hardships •sented by applicant are not valid when dealing with <br />new construction and site planning -- good planning coui. have <br />alleviated all need for variances. <br />4. There are other locations (one to the northwest side of house) for <br />the proposed pool outside of the protected area. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.