My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-2000 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2000
>
10-16-2000 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2023 12:19:41 PM
Creation date
3/21/2023 12:13:13 PM
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.
/
336
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
L <br />The replacement and combination of the retaining walls will reduce the hardcover coverage <br />in the 0-75' zone from 922 s.f. (12.2%) to 882 s.f. (11.7%). Applicants have no intent to <br />remove the shed and ramp which account for 3.7% of the 0-75' total. <br />The lakeside patio of approximately 278 s.f. will increase the hardcover coverage in the 75- <br />250' zone from 5,811 s.f. (64.2%) to 6,098 s.f (67.4%). The applicants have already reduced <br />the hardcover coverage by removing landscape plastic under rock. However, there still is a <br />considerable amount of landscape fabric in the 75-250' zone.(According to survey). <br />Removal of the landscape fabric (1,727 s.f) would reduce the amount of hardcover from <br />5,811 s.f (64.2%) to 4,371 s.f (48.32%). <br />Comprehensive Plan; (Retaining Walls) <br />The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan (“Comprehensive Plan”) contains a number <br />of general land use and environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land <br />alteration would be consistent. Without the retaining walls in the 0-75' zone erosion would be a <br />problem. See attached excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies and views on <br />altering shoreline areas. (Exhibit D). <br />Engineering ReviewtfRetaining Walls) <br />The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint <br />and recommends new retaining walls be constructed on the site between the home and the lake. It <br />is his opinion that the existing retaining walls should be replaced. (See Exhibit E). He also notes <br />the unpredictabilit>' of boulder walls as compared to other wall types. <br />Statement of Hardship; <br />The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also <br />be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. <br />Issues for Consideration; <br />1. Will granting of the variances alter the essential character of the land? <br />2. Is lakeshore erosion at this site substantial as to warrant the retaining wall system <br />proposed? <br />3. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone ;s ov: • what is allowed, should the patio square footage be <br />limited to the square footage of the deck which e.xisted on the property? (Removed deck -135 <br />s.f versus proposed patio - 387 s.f). <br />4. What is the visual impact of one 4' retaining wall as compared tot he existing two 2' walls? <br />What degree of screening should be required? <br />#2630 Gregg/Stephanie Larsen <br />1380 Rest Point Road <br />yariance/CUP <br />10.16/2000 <br />Page 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.