My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
04-22-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 9:13:03 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 9:11:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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 #2098 <br />April 9,1996 <br />Page 2 <br />EXISTING <br />70' <br />ORIGINAL <br />PROPOSAL <br />REVISED <br />PROPOSAL <br />CODE <br />REOMT <br />VAR <br />REOD? <br />1. Street setback 25 ’25 ’30’Yes <br />2. West side setback 13’6.8 ’9.5 ’10’Yes <br />3. Gar. to Gar. <br />setback <br />NA 9 ’H’+10’No <br />4. East side setback 10'8 ’8 ’ (6’ cant.)10’Yes <br />5. Lake setback 75’88 ’99'75’No <br />6. Lot coverage 690 s.f.1,795 s.f.1,492 s.f.1,500 s.f <br />(17.5%) <br />No <br />7. 0-75' Hardcover Os.f.0 s.f.0 s.f 0 s.f No <br />8. 75-250’ <br />Hardcover <br />1,452 s.f. <br />(29.7%) <br />2.551 s.f. <br />(46%) <br />1,956 s.f <br />(40%) <br />25%Yes <br />9. Lot area 8,550 s.f.8,550 s.f 8.550 s.f 43,560 s.f Yes <br />10. Lot width 50'/46’50’/46’50’/46’140’Yes <br />As noted in the letter of revision, applicant has reversed the house and revised and reduced the floor <br />plan. The result is that the lot coverage by structures limit ot 1,500 s.f. is met; the structure to <br />structure" setback of 10’ between applicant's proposed garage and the existing detached garage to <br />the west, is now met; and 75-250’ hardcover proposal is revised downwards to 40%. <br />The proposed side setbacks are mostly conforming on the west side and still at 8 ’ (except for the <br />section of cantilever, at 6’) as originally proposed on the east side. Tlie proposal appears to <br />in keeping with the standards for this small size lot in this constantly redeveloping neighborhood. <br />Also while drainage is a concern in the neighborhood (see the anonymous letter), it appears that <br />drainage from the new construction on this propert>' can be dealt with on site, and the City will work <br />with the propertv owner and Mr. Seran to the east to address their joint drainage needs. <br />Issues for Discussion <br />1 Has adequate hardship been demonstrated to justify granting lot area and width vanances? <br />r ni .-n t - ' I ^ Alhj
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.