My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-13-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
11-13-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 2:47:53 PM
Creation date
10/6/2023 2:37:15 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.
/
599
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
r. <br />Zoning FUe #2066 <br />September 8, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />8. <br />9. <br />comprise some 1,400 s.f. which would be reduced by approximately 60% with the <br />proposed 18" overhangs. <br />The area of rock and plastic between the driveway and the existing front entry has not <br />been listed as hardcover by the applicants and a portion of it is ow t e ’ <br />tSs area is approximately 400 s.f., of which about half is below existing overhangs. <br />While removal of large portions of concrete driveway is positive improvement, the <br />^p!os^ blkup/par4 apron (item G on the survey) needs to be relocated, smee « <br />encroaches over the existing drainfield. <br />Knowing that there is no feasible alternate septic site, what deg^ of improvements to <br />this pro^rty are justified? Should any improvements be ailowed unul/unless munic p <br />sewer becomes reality for this property? <br />Would mere transformation of the carport into an enclosed garage, and conversion of all <br />Sto piKh^lfs, be acceptable as part of a remcKleling of the house wuh.n <br />the existing footprint, as an alternative to the applicants proposal? Further, what is <br />Planning Commission's view of changing the carport to living space , adding one or two <br />Mails to" *e end of the existing garage and placing a pitched roof over the entire <br />Structure? Clearly there is an issue of additional side setback encroachment, ut a eas <br />the additions would be in the 75-250 zone . <br />Are there specific hardships or justification that support any of the above Menarios which <br />add to bullTof structure in the 0-75' zone? Is it reasonable to allow the creation ot a <br />pitched roof to replace the fiat roof, justified merely by the aesthetics, or can .ipplican <br />provide technical reasons why the flat roof is unacceptable (is it leaking, <br />maintenance problem, etc.)? <br />Options for Action <br />1. <br />3. <br />Approve all setback variances as proposed, including proposed hardcover removals and <br />additions (subject to relocating backup apron out ot drainfield). <br />Approve only placing pitched roof over entire garage/carport/one story house structure, <br />with proposed hardcover trades. <br />Table for applicants to bring back a revised proposal (give applicants direction as to what <br />additional infonnation or parameters are required). <br />4.Combination of the above
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.