My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1994
>
08-15-1994 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/18/2023 4:01:06 PM
Creation date
10/18/2023 3:53:03 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.
/
234
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 #1953 <br />August 4. 1994 <br />Pace 2 <br />F - Hardcover Facts <br />G - Existing Floor Plan <br />H - Proposed Floor Plan <br />I • Elevation/Section <br />J - Lakeshore Setback Determination <br />Description of Request <br />H The new construction will extend no further into the substandard side yard than the existing <br />structure at 6 ’. Ihe proposed 12’xl8’ addition will be located less than 4’ from the existing <br />oaraee the grade level deck would be 8 l/2\ Upon your site inspection, note the overhang ot <br />L garage and review Exhibit 1. The U overhang will result in a separation setback ol less than <br />3’ requiring special fire wall construction. The proposed improvement results m an excess ^ <br />structural coverage at 302.6 s.f. or 4.49%. Structural coverage exists at 17.5.® and will be <br />increased to 19.5%. <br />Statement of Hardship <br />Livingfton Avenue lots designated on the plat map. Exhibit B. 11 or 61 % of the <br />are single lots equal to or less in area. The proposed improvement is similar to the pattern of <br />recent improvement to homes within the Navarre Heights area. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Is structural coverage excess proposed too great for this property? What of the proximity <br />of other strucnires on the adjacent parcel? <br />2. <br />3. <br />Will you approve a separation setback of less than 3’? <br />4. <br />Should the strucniral expansions be reduced? <br />is the side setback of 6 ’ acceptable as long as it extends no further into the » dard <br />yard? <br />5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.