Laserfiche WebLink
bfk(i\ <br />M example of this approach exists on our neighbors ’ property, 1270 Spruce Lane. In 2000 the <br />city granted a \-anance request for hardcov er equal to 46% within the 75’ to 250’ area for this <br />property. <br />We feel that this dcnsit>> exceeds what is reasonable for this site, and we would not like to <br />continue this pattern of overbuilding. <br />Gerda and I wish to build an adequate retirement home by joining the nvo lots. We have <br />diKUSsed our nee^ for our new home with our designer and they have developed the plan <br />dw^enteV^*^^ Diagram of Proposal ¥2^ Sheet US and sketch floor plan of attached supporting <br />We have met with the Citv' and reviewed these plans on tw o occasions, each time we have had <br />our plans redesigned to reduce the size of the home and hardcover. <br />We feel that the design of the home as it is now will adequately meet our needs. As we age we <br />fmd It necessary' and desirable to live on a single lew; of the home. We therefore have asked to <br />have a home with a master bedroom on the first floor. Additionally we have a very active <br />extended family that come to visit us often. We arc the envy of many grandparents. Our visiting <br />family however, requires sumdent space for our grandchildren to play while we supervise them <br />For this reason, we have also designed the home with a Family Room on the first floor. <br />By removing the existing home on Lot 3 to build our new home, we will removing 800 square <br />feet of hi^dcover (or an area of 20’x40 ’) from the lakefront 0 ’-75’ zone. B} pulling our home <br />close to the front setback, we have sited the home nearly 120* from the lakefront. lliis will <br />snoreline additional surface area for run off to be absorbed prior to its reaching the <br />In order to compensate for square foolagohard cover demands of the first floor, w e have located <br />our gai^c tucked under the first floor of the home. To reduce hardcover, we have sited the <br />home light to the front yard setback, thus minimizing the amount of driveway. With these <br />have before you a plan in which the hardcover equals not 46% as would be possible <br />with if Proposal //1 were pursued, nor is it the 42% hardcover that now exists as an average of the <br />four lots, but rather we are proposing a hardcover reduction from the existing to 38%. <br />In addition, if we follow the m o home development scheme, we would be building nvo docks <br />but our proposal is only for one. * <br />We know that requesting to build mo Individual homes, with 46% hardcover each, similar to the <br />variance recently granted our neighbors, as well as building two docks, would maximize our <br />reule value ^d profit on our lots. However it would not meet our needs for a retirement home <br />where our children ^d grandchildren can visit. Neither w ould it be as environmentally friendly <br />as buildmg a smgle home with significantly reduced hardcover on a single larger combined iot. <br />Finally, we respectfully request the planning commission ’s thoughtful consideration of this <br />vanar.ee request so that w e might continue our long-standing residenc^ in Orono in our <br />proposed retirement home.