11-16-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

approval of a 27.1 foot rear setback as proposed. Regarding the variance to the height limitation of 30 feet, applicant has submitted a letter describing his concerns and reasons for the height variance request. The peak of the highest roof will be 28 feet above the ground elevation at the rear. From the front the peak height would be 35 feet. Staff would note that based on the definitions of building height in the code, the open loft space requires that the height measurement go to the peak of the roof rather than takiry an average from the eave to the peak. You will also note that many new homes in Orono exceed the 30 foot peak limitation, but based on the average peak height measurement, do meet height requirements. The height requirement appears in the code apparently for niainly visual aesthetic purposes. Staff would note that in this case the height of the structure will be masked somewhat by the extreme slope above it, hence the house v;ill not stick up into the sky, but may appear as blending into the hillside. It is unlikely that this structure will be visible from the lake. Existing vegetation and the setback of approximately 175 feet from the read would all tend to make the 35 foot peak height non- obtrusive in the neighborhood. Inspector Tom Jacobs has indicated that the height of this structure v;ill not be a safety concern for f i.. a fighting purposes as long as the garage is attached to the structure. Staff RecomiBcndation Given the information supplied, staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of a variance for side setback of 12 feet rather than 30 foot required, finding that the neighboring residence structure located at that side is more than 60 feet away and this variance will not cause any significant encroachment on light, air or open space in the neighborhood. 2 . App r oval of a rear setback variance to all ow a rear setback of 27.1 feet where 50 feet is normally required, finding that the steep slopes above the house make it unlikely that a house could feasibly be constructed on the property to the rear. Noting also that that rear property is about 2/3 of an acre in area and is unsev/ered with virtually no location that is reasonably feasible for installation of a septic system and is not likely to be served with municipal sower from below, hence any future house on it would likely bo near Tonkawa Roarl. 3. Staff recommends denial of a setback variance from the garage structure to the house structure and recommends that those structures be attached for safety purposes, noting that applicant has constructed footings under tlio garage so that it is now feasible to attach those two structures. 4. Staff recommends approval of the height variance to peak height of 35 feet from the front side of the house that the steepness and length of the li i I 1 behind the house and allow a finding