My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1996
>
04-15-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/7/2023 2:48:16 PM
Creation date
9/7/2023 2:42:11 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.
/
283
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
Zaaing File #2098 <br />April 9, 1996 <br />Page 2 <br />EXISTING <br />ORIGINAL <br />PROPOSAL <br />REVISED <br />PROPOSAL <br />CODE <br />REOMT <br />VAR <br />REOD? <br />1. Street setback 70'25'25'30'Yes <br />2. West side setback 13'6.8'9.5'10’Yes <br />3. Gar. to Gar. <br />setback <br />NA 9'll'-*-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 0 s.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 let coverage by structures limit of 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. The proposal appears to be more <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 property can be dealt with on site, and the City will work <br />with the property 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 variances?
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.