My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-15-1996 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
07-15-1996 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/13/2023 3:12:51 PM
Creation date
9/13/2023 3:07:42 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.
/
264
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).
View images
View plain text
I <br />Zoning File #2135 <br />July 11, 1996 <br />Page 3 <br />of years in the future, hence they are balancing the cost of pump out vs. the cost of replacing <br />the system. Staff finds this part of the proposal reasonable from the standpoint that vk aC5 <br />concerned that the existing system likely would be contributing to the degradation of Long <br />Lake should it again be subjected to full family usage. Conversion of the existing septic tanks <br />to a suitable holding tank system may be as simple as plugging the outlet, or in fact may <br />require replacement with a sealed tank in order to ensure its viability. The cost of the former <br />action is probably less than $100; tank replacement would likely be a $2,000 project. <br />Items for Discussion <br />1.Is construction of a second stor>- above the existing one story residence, located 49' <br />from the shoreline \^ere a 100' setback is normally required, acceptable to the Planning <br />Commission? <br />2.Is the proposed 8' street setback for the attached garage acceptable as compared to the <br />0.5' street encroachment of the existing detached garage? <br />3.Is there justification for granting an intensification of the 32' existing/proposed average <br />lakeshore setback encroachment by adding a second story? <br />4.Does the applicant's hardcover proposal for 1,185 s.f (6.73%) in the 0-75' zone, and <br />1,467 s.f (13.46%) in the 75-250' zone, meet Planning Commission's hardcover goals <br />for this property? <br />5.Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the additional structure or <br />fill that will be needed within the bluff impact zone in order to accommodate the <br />proposed construction? <br />6.Does Planning Commission accept applicant's proposal for conversion to a holding tank <br />and placement of covenants regarding the number of bedrooms, as sufficient to keep this <br />property from becoming a potential burden to the City and to this neighborhood via <br />future septic system concerns? <br />Staff Recommendation <br />A recommendation for approval, partial approval or conditional approval should clearly define <br />the hardships and justification for each of the variances (see Nancy Gawron's letter. Exhibit D). <br />I <br />' \
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.