Laserfiche WebLink
City of Orono - Information in Response to letter dated 6/12/03 <br />720 North Arm Drive <br />Jeff and Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants <br />June 16,2003 <br />Responses to Applicadon Summaiy: <br />1. We agree with this item. <br />2. 0 - 75’ setback zone. We believe the 75* setback has changed over the past several years <br />due to erosion conditions within our site boundaries therefore, substantially reducing our <br />75’ setback zone. The neighbor to the south indicated his shoreline has bm altered with <br />the past few years (filling in material to pu^ the shoreline back, providing more <br />shoreline grass area, therefore pushing the shoreline back. It is our understanding this <br />alteration occurred prior to the constructing of there “new” 2 stoiy addition on existing <br />foundation, therefore allowing that home to be in compliance with the 75’ setback zone. <br />Also, by drawing a common lakeshore line between our shoreline and the adjoining <br />neighb^, you can see an unusual shape to our shoreline compared to this “common <br />line”, suggesting erosion from lack of maintenance. It is our intention to repair the <br />deteriorating shoreline. <br />3. We agree with this item. <br />4. We agree with this item. <br />5. W'e agree writh this item. <br />6. tVe agree to alter thb Item. See additional comments within this document <br />7. We agree with this item. <br />S. Ve agree to alter this item. See additional comments within this document <br />9. >Ve agree to alter this item. See additional com/ients within this document <br />10. One of our revl&ed plans reduces the existing iardcover in thb tone from 2257s.f. to <br />1795 s.f, a reduction of462 s.f. <br />Staff R .commendations: <br />a) We agree to offset the garage by 2 feet vroviding a setback of 7 feet Anymore <br />than thb severely comprombes the interior layout and appearance of the <br />house. <br />b) The neighboring house to the south has already set precedence. Not with <br />bsues of setback, but with issues of **ovmhadowing adjoining pn^>erties". In <br />fjct the house to the south b very Imposing to our property. The height to the <br />Ciive on the lakeshore side of the home b approximately 28 feet above grade. <br />The height to the peak of th b house b approximatdy 43 feet above grade. Thb <br />house's lower level elevation b appro.ximatdy 2 feet higher than ours. The <br />approximate hdght of our home to th e peak elevation b 39 feet, 4 fed shorter <br />and 2fed tower in elevation for a total 6 feet difference in mass. Abo thb <br />home b substantially big, ;er in footprint area than we are planning, presenting <br />t. n even more imposing structure than our proposed design. We find thb <br />recommendation extremely mbieading and inaccurate. (See attached photos) <br />c) We agree with thb explanation and will alter our original proposal (See <br />attached revbed designs) <br />d) We need to understand your priorities regarding acceptable limits allowable for <br />altering and upgrade the condition of the existing structure. <br />s. <br />P-1