My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-11-2019 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2019
>
03-11-2019 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/22/2019 12:16:46 PM
Creation date
5/22/2019 12:14:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
185
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
FILE # LA19-000004 <br />19 Feb 2019 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage <br />restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed <br />25 percent of the entire lot area. <br />4. All other zoning district standards can be met. <br />The applicant’s request for hardcover, setback, and height variances results in the property’s <br />inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are <br />required in order to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property consistent with <br />other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width <br />variances are not granted. <br /> <br />Rear Yard Setback Variance (Section 78-350) <br />The property’s ±130 feet of depth is challenging, particularly due to the applied average <br />lakeshore setback at approximately 70-feet from the OHWL, the 75-foot lake setback, and the <br />30-foot rear yard setback. The required setbacks leave an approximate 36 foot deep building <br />envelope which is not unreasonable, however is inconsistent with the two neighboring <br />properties and many of the rebuilds in the immediate neighborhood. <br /> <br />Hardcover; 75-Foot Setback Variances (Sections 78-1680 & 78-1700) <br />The existing home to be removed encroaches into the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks. <br />The new home is proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback and will encroach <br />approximately 5 feet into the 75-foot setback with the covered stoop, the home will encroach <br />about 2 feet. <br /> <br />The proposed hardcover level of 41.4% is a 412 square foot increase from the existing <br />conditions. The increase is primarily resulting from the increased building coverage. The <br />proposed home is nearly twice the size of the existing home. However, when you include the <br />existing detached garage, the overall proposed building coverage level is only increasing by 355 <br />square feet. The applicant is not maximizing the proposed building coverage due to the limiting <br />setbacks and hardcover. <br /> <br />Driveway Width Variance (Sections 78-1282; 78-1680, 78-1681) <br />The Code permits certain hardcover improvements within the 75-foot lake setback. An 8 foot <br />wide driveway is permitted in this area. Crystal Bay Road is a narrow roadway; its 20 foot width <br />does not allow for reasonable on street parking. The applicant has proposed a driveway with an <br />11.5 foot curb cut and a 25 foot wide garage access and parking area. The hardcover regulations <br />in the code specify a minimum width to match the garage doors serving the home which is <br />reasonable. Section 78-1282 which specifies an 8 foot maximum width appears to be in conflict <br />in this circumstance with Section 78-1681 which requires specific minimum widths. Based on an <br />aerial photo analysis, many of the properties along Crystal Bay Road have driveways exceeding 8 <br />feet in width within the 75-foot setback. <br /> <br />Height Variance (Sections 78-1 & 78-350) <br />The Code limits building height to a 30-foot maximum based on existing adjacent grade <br />elevations. The existing lot topography appears to be the result of grade manipulations to <br />facilitate the rear yard detached garage. The retaining walls along the rear property line created <br />a flat area inconsistent with the adjacent neighboring properties and a ‘natural grade’. The <br />applicant proposes to fill in this area and return to the original grades. The highest “existing <br />grade” from which the height calculation is based is 939.3’ rather than 946’ as is the highest
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.