12-16-1985 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

To Fr« Date: Planning Commission Members Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator December 11, 1985 Subject: #983 Walter & Marilyn Pemberton, 3580 North Shore Drive Variance ~ Third Review List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C * Planning Commission Minutes of 11/18/85 - Notice to Applicant of 11/21/85 - Revised Proposal Meeting General Guidelines Stated by Planning Commission on 11/18/85 Exhibit D - Conceptual Sketch of Proposed House With Neighboring Houses (not to scale) Exhibit E - Memo From Tom Jacobs, Building Inspector The applicants have given consideration to a number of proposals and the one before you falls within the general guidelines set up by the Planning Commission at your November meeting, as follows: 1. House 24'x44'; ‘ garage tuckunder off-set 5'x20'; driveway with backup ap^on. House set 3' back from existing front line (and 3* behind Fegers). 2. House portion ends up 10' from lot line and 16.5' from Fegers house. Garage portion ends up 5' from lot line and 11' from corner of Feger's house. 3. No average lakeshore setback variance required on north side. 4„ Deck in front encroaches only 1' into average street setback, and is 20' from assumed R.O.W. line, and 33' from edge of pavement. House is 28* from assumed R.O.W.; 41' from edge of pavement. Since our yard setback requirement does not specify where to measure when the street lot line does not exist, and defines yard area required as 30* in this case, and the area between the deck and the pavement is 33' of open space with no structure, doesn't the deck actually meet the yard re quirement? 5. Plan requires minimal fill/cut in 0-75' setback zone. 6. Hardcover limits set by Planning Commission at November meeting are not exceeded. (Calculations at upper right of survey.) Two further items of note: first, from the standpoint of consistent action, your recommendation on this application will likely affect your recommendation on the Meline/LaBresh application two doors down (#999). Secondly, I am informed by Building Inspector, Tom Jacobs, that the panelized construction building proposed has not been approved by the State Building Code Division as meeting SBC/ICBO standards. The builder, David Nelson (Woodmark Homes), has not to our knowledge provided the information to the State that is needed to gain State approval. Unless the con struction method is granted approval by the State, the proposed house will not be approved for construction in Orono. Hence, there is a possibility that a different home will ultimately be placed on the site. Because of the "building-specific" review of this lot tc ate, it is likely that a house of a different "footprint" configuration would require another variance application.