Laserfiche WebLink
Mrdlovtrr'see notatlY£on <br />0-75> 1701 s.f. (37.3%) 0% 1622 s.f. (35.6%) <br />if sidewalk to lake remains: 1922 s.f. (42.2%) <br />75-250* 961 s.f. (58.9%) 25% 956 s.f* (58.6%) <br />3. Pence and height relationships of the existing fence along the <br />right of way are show in exhibit G. The existing fence is about <br />5'10« above the grade at the fence line planter box. T)je fence <br />section is about a 4* high section. The top of the fence is about <br />4'6"’ higher then the crown of the road. <br />......♦rijot a fence 6' above the crown of the road or about 18 nigner <br />then it now exists. Also note that Orono Code "’=“|,^^^’to“theUD to within 2' of a lot line, (but not over the lot line and into tne <br />right of way) hence a variance would be required to replace the <br />planters at their existing location. <br />Discussion proposing a house addition that would extend the south <br />wall of the houle Tbout Z.V closer to the lake than it already is. <br />Rationale for this is that it is structure that woulo be partially above a <br />already existing section of basement. <br />Secondly, the applicant is proposing to construct an attached <br />to the west^of the house. There is currently no garage, hence their <br />reauest to construct one is not an unusual request. The configuration <br />proposed by the applicants leaves approximately a 2* <br />a 6* total setbaclc from the neighboring house, which is <br />line As it is proposed in the applicants sketch, the doors of the garage <br />would be approximately 12* from the right-of-way line and <br />the actual traveled roadway. This configuration would allow only a minimal <br />backup area and g^^^^ cars would likely have to back out onto the county <br />roaS"*^ Howtver. ’that is already the case so that no new hazards would <br />exist, but an existing one would be perpetuated. <br />This is an extremely difficult application, in that <br />improvements to the property are possible »any varra^ extremelyof those variances will tend to continue and even increase the e^xj:rem^ <br />HAneo visua1 oerceotion of this area. Small lot size Is y <br />critcal issue,*and is made even more critical by the to the major <br />thoroughfare. Staff feels that Planning Commission and Council must <br />determine what degree of improvement to this property '•a aPPtoP’^iate i <br />light of the physical concerns of the property, weighted against the <br />property owners rights and their investment in the property. <br />indationStaff Re <br />1. Planter boxes and fence. The applicant certainly is <br />oroximity of the house to the road, and a privacy fence of some height is <br />^nn^oSrlitV If the county has no problem with reconstruction of the <br />plLt« toxes within their right-of-way, th»n staff that such <br />planter boxes would be aesthetically pleasing V?!Lht of-wav line <br />Would further recommend that the fence be located at the <br />not within the right-of-way, and techncially be located on the applicants <br />property- Furthermore, staff would recommend that <br />lonstruc;ed no more thkt 12- above the grade of the <br />top of the fence be no higher than 6* above the crown of the road at the <br />site.