My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
02-21-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2012 9:55:39 AM
Creation date
6/13/2012 9:55:14 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.
/
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
��P <br /> l. <br /> ` <br /> 24 Sept. 2005 � <br /> To: Orono City Council Members <br /> From: Stephen L Lazson <br /> Re: 1860 Shoreline Drive Proposal <br /> The majority of residents of Fox Hill,which is quite close to the proposed <br /> development,have the following concerns: <br /> 1. There is a request for variance of lot width. The request is for a <br /> building site that would normally require a lot of 200 foot width,which <br /> is 50.4%more than the actual width of 133 feet. (I served on the <br /> Shorewood Planning Commission for four years; rarely did we <br /> recommend any variances of significance,but never more than 10%.) <br /> 2. The lot size is less than the two acres required by our city;therefore <br /> this project should be confined to the footprint of the current home. <br /> 3. The size of the proposed home is completely out of character with the <br /> . neighborhood and cannot provide a suitable buffer for neighbors on all <br /> sides. <br /> 4. The project violates the ordinary appearance and spirit of a residential <br /> home: it smacks of commercialism with a huge parking area(5000 <br /> square feet) and a theatre (28 or more seats). <br /> 5. The garage space is inordinately lazge and obtrusive for a residence; it <br /> could even be used for commercial endeavors,not allowed by our <br /> city's residential code. <br /> 6. This project has not had the full Planning Commission endorsement. <br /> (In my experience,this was a requirement before City Council <br /> consideration.) <br /> 7. This is a project of considerable cost,with possible cost overruns; <br /> abandonment of a project has occurred in such a situation. What has <br /> the city done to assure the neighborhood and the city that the contractor <br /> has adequate,viable, and sustainable assets to complete the project in a <br /> timely fashion? If so, can these assets support a sale that may take <br /> years? <br /> 8. East of this lot in question is vacant lot 1(2) subd. #356. It also appears <br /> to be less than two acres in size. Any significant variances granted by <br /> the Council would impact future development of this lot, and others. <br /> Sincerely, Stephen L Larson <br /> President, Fox Hill Home Owners Association <br /> E-mail: DrSLLgyn@Yahoo.com <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.