My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-20-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
09-20-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2023 12:13:02 PM
Creation date
11/1/2023 12:06:35 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.
/
394
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
existing drainageway. Council held to the originally propo.sed hardcover percentage w hich was <br />at 29.4%. The current proposal shows a 10*x26' rear addition with a 5*x2r deck to the rear and <br />a single story enclosed entry 6’x5 ’. Over that will be another 3rd story. The issues for the <br />current review are the side setbacks, the average lakeshore setback, the hardcover excesses and <br />now the issue of a height question. The code states that height of structure can be no more than <br />30’ or 2-1/2 stories. The lower level has to be classified as a full story since more than 50'>o is <br />above grade. The structure is now considered a 3-stoiy structure per the building code. Total <br />height is 29 ’6". Side setbacks are slightly improved, hardcover is currently propo.sed at 29.5%. <br />The applicant is now asking that the sidewalk remain in the solid configuration for ea.se of <br />maintenance and the cement pad is now at 9'10". <br />Mabusth stated that if this configuration is allowed there won't be a reduction in hardcover in <br />the 0-75' and hardcover is now at 29.5% rather than 29.4%. <br />Applicant commented that the walkway was 53' and the City Council suggested removal of 65 <br />s.f. and in the current propo.sal reduces the walkway to 35' or 105 .sq. ft. hardcover. <br />Schroeder asked if there is a way to get the hardcover down. <br />Mr. Prueter responded that the 9’xlO' pad in the front could be reduced to 7 and 10. <br />Schroeder said he’d w ant to make proposal as close to what w as originally proposed. <br />Peterson a.sked whether any neighbors had any concerns regarding this addition. <br />Mabusth noted the letters from the neigiibors. <br />Lindquist commented that house to east of applicants will be significantly taller than proposed <br />structure. <br />Rowlette commented that it would be difficult to remove snow and ice on pads and that it <br />doesn ’t make sense for a main w^alkway. <br />It was moved by Lindquist, .seconded by Peterson, to recommend approval of Application <br />#1856 subject to reducing hardcover to 29.4%. Vote; Ayes 7 Nays 0. <br />(#8) #1857 JAMES L. STINSON <br />2623 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING <br />Mr. Stimson was present. <br />Applicant proposed 11.5’x 18’addition to the lakeside of residence and the reinstallalion of a <br />11.5’x21' deck adjacent to the addition. It will be placed where there is a landscaped area <br />underlain with geotechnic fabric that wasn ’t recorded. The propo.sed improvement results in <br />an increase in hardcover.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.