My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Big Island
>
100 Big Island - 23-117-23-21-0001
>
Land Use
>
87-1122, CUP
>
Project packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/23/2025 1:23:21 PM
Creation date
12/23/2025 1:13:04 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.
/
262
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).
View images
View plain text
will work with the applicant in the preparation of a final <br />redevelopment plan. Such plan to be presented to the Planning <br />Commission for final action sometime in June. <br />The following issues must be addressed in Phase 3 review. <br />1. Review Intent of the RS District and Comprehensive Management <br />Plan 4/31 (Exhibit J) <br />a.) Is the "year round" use proposed consistent with <br />intent of the RS District or Comp Plan? If not, what <br />would you recommend to applicant? <br />a.) seasonal - summer only <br />b.) seasonal - summer/winter (but no overnight <br />camping) <br />b.) What about intensity of use proposed at 92 dwelling <br />units (67 structural units - 25 camp sites)/ If an acre <br />is required for a dwelling unit, how much area should be <br />set aside for a dining hall or other proposed <br />Accessory structures? What is an acceptable residential <br />density for the 57 acre site? <br />a.) previous level at approximately 50 units <br />b.) less units because or increase in support <br />accessory day recreation type uses. <br />2. Should the applicant be applying for a PRD mode of <br />development if clustering is desired? A 10 feet setback is <br />required between all structures. Applicant may find attaching <br />units a costly consideration in light of required fire code <br />standards. Is the independent cabin structure more appropriate <br />in light of minimal services available? . . . and/or more <br />acceptable because the unit appears more seasonal (summer <br />cabin/low profile) and less motel like? <br />3. What about the motel type construction? Cabin structures can <br />be designated to handle handicapped needs. <br />4. Subdivision 18 (C) would require that all existing structures <br />to he repaired or r-placed must meet required setbacks - staff <br />can confirm that all required repair work will cost more than 50% <br />of Assessor's fair market value per structure_ <br />Subdivision 4 (0) specifically will not permit the construction <br />of a new boat house within 75 feet of the shoreline. The <br />existing boar house would require a complete new foundation in <br />addition to other maior structural repair - the applicant wants <br />to rebi:ild in the same location - under what conditions or <br />hardships would Planning Commission approve a variance to permit <br />the reconstruction? <br />5. The Code refers to several emergency preparedness steps that <br />must be addressed by the Poplicant, are there specific items Lhat <br />should be expanded on or new requirements added in Phase Two <br />discussions. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.