Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. <br /> s • +� • <br /> F) The proposed improvements would increase hardcover in <br /> the 75-250' zone from the approximately 38.2% hardcover <br /> allowed in past approvals up to 43.9%. Only 25% hardcover <br /> is normally allowed in the 75-250' zone. <br /> G ) The Planning Commission on November 20 , 1989 <br /> recommended approval of the 6' fence, finding that it <br /> replaces a pre-existing 6' high stockade fence in the same <br /> location. The proposed fence will be within the property <br /> boundaries. <br /> H) The Planning Commission at their June 18, 1990 meeting <br /> recommended denial of the excess hardcover in the 75-250' <br /> zone associated with the loop driveway, finding that the <br /> excessive hardcover associated with such a driveway is more <br /> of a concern than the possible safety and parking issues <br /> suggested by applicant as justification. <br /> I) At that same meeting, Planning Commission recommended <br /> that the applicant be held to the previously approved <br /> hardcover (calculated by staff at 2.9% in the 0-75' zone and <br /> 38.2% in the 75-250' zone). Planning Commission recommended <br /> that applicant revise his terrace, sidewalk, and driveway <br /> proposals as necessary to accomplish this. <br /> 4. The applicant has indicated a secondary proposal for <br /> sidewalks and driveway that retains and slightly expands the <br /> existing driveway and back-up apron , includes hardcover <br /> associated with terrace, sidewalks, fence pillars, and retaining <br /> walls with a hardcover increase in the 75 -250 ' zone to <br /> approximately 41%. The City Council finds that the scope of <br /> these proposed improvements is in keeping with the character and <br /> size of the house, and the additional parking area will provide <br /> for greater safety. <br /> 5. The Council finds that the proposed terrace construction in <br /> the 0-75' zone, with the associated hardcover, will act merely to <br /> replace a pre-existing deck in approximately the same location, <br /> that the proposed terrace will be of less square footage and of <br /> greater setback from the lake than the previously existing deck, <br /> and that the applicant's intended temporary removal of the old <br /> circular deck was understandable since that deck as it existed <br /> had been previously approved, hence applicant should not be <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />