My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
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).
View images
View plain text
ChronoIog Page 3 <br /> � that suggest tlle standard shouldn't apply to a given sihtation. We <br /> should only vary fi om the standards wheil a va�.iance will iiot negatively <br /> impact the long-ternl character of the neighborhood. <br /> 4. If we don't take these oppoi•tunities to gain conformity, we will <br /> never make pi•ogi•ess torvard the goal. We will uzerely have bigger, <br /> niore pennaiient stnictures in locations or with characteristics that are <br /> � iiot ui keeping with tiie City's long tezril goals. <br /> 5. We must be very cautious in granting varilnces wi�en we have <br /> the opportunity to gain total couformity. Decisioils niade now to <br /> accept soinetlurig substa�ldard will lilcely affect the neighborhood for the <br /> . iiext 50-75 years or loilger. <br /> . We also Uegan a discussion to detennine whether we all agree on whicll basic <br /> cases we are conceined witli in tei�ns of rebtiilds. We reached some <br /> coiiclusions, but did izot necessarily address every unique situation. We <br /> concluded t11at we would need a demo plan for every remodel job to know <br /> exactly what was goiiig to remain <br /> Febniary 28, 2003 Staff inenlo questioiling whether we really want to combine the concepts of <br /> removal and expansion. Other cities' codes don't appear to do tlus.Looking <br /> at Shore�vood's nonconfoi7nities code section (attached), the distinctioil <br /> becomes more clear. <br /> � Item g.talks specifically about the destruction of an existing noncoilfoilning <br /> stnicture. If 50%or more of the value of the existing structure is gone,then it <br /> can't be rebuilt except iii complete confonnity. <br /> Item k. deals with the ex�ansion of an existing nonconfonlling structures. <br /> Expausion is allowed as long as the eY�ausioii does iiot ulcrease the nonconfoniuty <br /> (i.e.tlie expa�isionn7ust be in complete conf'ornufiy). Tl�is is what we have beeii <br /> doing all along. But,we have ahistoiy of grantiug variances that allow uicreases . <br /> in nonconfonnity, aild it's difficult to bacic off from that llistory... <br /> If we start to deal witli the percentage of the final product,we are going to Ue <br /> signif cantly changing tlie way we have been doing Uusiness. <br /> Staff niemo of 2-28-03 suggested t11e following conclusioils based on the <br /> Januaiy 29 discussions: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.