My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
11-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2012 4:28:14 PM
Creation date
7/23/2012 4:28:04 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.
/
244
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
NIIl�TUTES OF THE ' <br /> ORONO PLAI�TNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 15,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#07-3305 Lake Country Builders,Inc., Continued) <br /> Kroeger asked if the driveway remains at 14 feet in width,what the hardcover would be. <br /> Graton sta.ted the existing driveway is 4,360 square feet and the proposed is 3,344 square feet. <br /> Curtis indicated she would need to calculate the amount of hardcover with the driveway at 14 feet. <br /> Kang commented she has a concern if the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone increases. Kang indicated she <br /> would like to hear what the recommendation of the fire department is on the driveway but that she <br /> would prefer to see the driveway reduced if at all possible. <br /> Kempf stated it is unfortunate that the Planning Commission was not in full agreement at the last <br /> meeting but that there is no guarantee that every commissioner will feel the same way as other <br /> commissioners. <br /> Kempf stated when they look at the current situation in terms of hardcover,there are two issues that <br /> should be considered. One is that this is a hardship lot and there is no place to construct outside of the <br /> 0-75 foot zone. Two, at the time the applicant was proposing the hardcover remain at 24 percent,that <br /> seemed to be pretty reasonable but that the driveway hardcover issue is something that needs to be <br /> resolved. <br /> Curtis stated with the existing driveway and proposed improvements,the hardcover would be at 26.9 <br /> percent for the 0-75 foot zone,for an increase of 2.9 percent. <br /> Zullo concurred that the lot is limited in its buildable space but pointed out that the applicant is <br /> proposing to decrease the setbacks even further. Zullo noted the property is currently being put to a <br /> reasonable use. <br /> Zimmerman stated they are very limited in their options and that reasonable use is an arbitrary term. <br /> Given the fact that the house was originally constructed in the 1950's,there comes a point when what <br /> currently exists is not reasonable based upon changes in the neighborhood. <br /> Kempf commented this is a unique lot and probably has significant value because it is located on a <br /> point. Kempf stated reasonable use for this lot versus a typical lot is that in his view a more valuable <br /> type of house belongs on this lot. <br /> Zullo stated based on the special aspects of the lot,what currently exists is reasonable and that the <br /> Planning Commission should take this application to a vote. <br /> Winer sta.ted Exhibit H states that the entire property is a peninsula and that the Planning Commission <br /> established at its August meeting that the lot is a hardship lot and that it is not Mr.Zimmerman's choice <br /> to have the driveway as it currently exists. Winer noted the applicant is below the City's height <br /> requirements and that the applicant is attempting to improve the runoff situation by incorporating a rain <br /> garden into his plans. <br /> Kroeger asked whether the house was constructed in 1991. <br /> PAGE 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.