My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-10-1993 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1993
>
05-10-1993 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2023 10:39:21 AM
Creation date
12/18/2023 10:35:01 AM
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.
/
421
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 #1812 <br />April 15, 1993 <br />Page 3 <br />foundation consisting of posts and earth floor. The roof appears to be in serious disrepair. If <br />the boathouse was to be altered as proposed, a new foundation, roof and possible siding would <br />be required. The staff has taken photos of the strucure for your review at our meeting. <br />The stairs within the lakeshore yard must be rebuilt. Members are cautioned m>t to use <br />stairs to descend to lakeshore yard. Recent lakeshore regulations will allow applicant to install <br />stairs at 4' width. A building permit is only required prior to construction. Review Exhibit J. <br />Note houses on both sides are located completely in front of the existing structure. An extensive <br />grassed yard exists between house and lakeshore. Drainage runs directly to lake. <br />Applicant ’s improvements result in a 2.6% increase in lot coverage and a 2% increase <br />in hardcover. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. <br />2. <br />What recommendation will Planning Commission have concerning the boathouse? The <br />removal of the boathouse would result in a 2.3% reduction in hardcover within the <br />lakeshore setback area and maintain total lot coverage at 17.4%. <br />The right side addition has been aligned with a 2’ wide fireplace improvement. The 2’ <br />chimney encroachment is considered a non-encroachment. Should addition maintain <br />existing 11 ’ setback rather than 9’ setback? <br />3.The detached garage at 886.9 s.f. is non-conforming and could never be rebuilt in its <br />present location. A new garage would have to be less than 750 s.f. to meet the required <br />setbacks with doors facing away from the street and mrnaround provided on site. Future <br />hardcover reductions may be realized at the time of future garage construction which <br />would also require a variance review because of the excesses of hardcover within the 75- <br />250 ’ setback area. <br />Options of Action <br />Approval as proposed. <br />OR <br />Approval as amended. <br />Denial
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.