My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-16-1990 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1990
>
07-16-1990 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2022 10:21:30 AM
Creation date
12/1/2022 10:11:14 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.
/
345
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
Zoning File #1569 <br />July 13, 1990 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />It is net customary for the City to ask for septic testing <br />when dealing with a 6>s acre dry contiguous site. Many portions <br />of this site are restricted for septic use with severe slopes and <br />by the required setback of 75' from the wetland. In addition, <br />please review the floor plans of the proposed structure. There <br />is a total of 10 bedrooms proposed for this residence. Two of <br />those bedrooms are proposed for guest or domestic staff use. The <br />two sleeping rooms are located on the first floor. Note that <br />there are no kitchen areas proposed. Applicant is advised that <br />if kitchen areas are ever installed to serve this section, a <br />separate conditional use permit will be required for a guest <br />house/non-rental apartment. The crucial issue for this review <br />will be if applicant's consultant can provide test results that <br />confirm the site can maintain a 10 bedroom home. Once again, <br />staff will confirm the capabilities of the site at your meeting. <br />In reviewing the site plan (Exhibit F), note the grading <br />proposed as a result of the major cutting and filling to be done <br />on the site. The applicant will be expected to file detailed <br />grading and drainage plans with the building permit application, <br />providing detail on all retaining walls on the site. Note the <br />retaining walls proposed are located well within the required <br />setback for accessory structure. Applicant's representative <br />should provide information as to the maximum height of the walls <br />proposed . <br />It is difficult for staff to determine whether a separate <br />conditional use permit review would be required lacking detailed <br />plans. As one may argue that because of the topography the <br />necessary land alterations and retaining walls are required to <br />protect the foundation of this oversized principal structure. <br />The building and zoning code would allow such land alterations <br />under a building permit. Planning Commission may \.ish to ask <br />further questions of the applicant and to provide direction to <br />the staff. <br />Please review Exhibit Bl-2, Mr. Webber has provided a <br />listing of the hardships and unique findings for this property in <br />seeking a front/street setback at 68' where the 100' setback is <br />required. They are reviewed as follows: <br />1. The majority of the home meets the 100' setback. The <br />setback variance is sought for only a garage and entry <br />addition to the residence. <br />2. The house has been placed at the edge of the ridge in <br />order to minimize erosion and the major cutting into the <br />more steeper elevations.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.