My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-1986 - Agenda Packet City Council - city council (4)
Orono
>
City Council
>
1986
>
01-13-1986 - Agenda Packet City Council - city council (4)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:01 AM
Creation date
12/18/2025 9:53:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
city council
Document Date
1/13/1986
Retention
After
Protection
Public
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.
/
205
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 #987 <br />January 9, 1986 <br />Paqe 2 <br />- Final propose( 5-250' hardcover = 9150 s.f. or 39.4% <br />- Tradeoff s include removal of excess driveway and removal of <br />plastic under rock on north side of house. <br />The other variance requested for the pool is for average setback. <br />The pool structure wil l encroach approximately 15' into the average <br />setback zone. Applicant has provided elevation drawings to show the <br />height and configuration of the structure showing it will be no higher <br />than the floor level of the existing deck. The neighbor to the north <br />has expressed some concern about the sight lines and views which <br />would be encroached upon (see exhibit J). In your site inspection you <br />should view the subject property from the neighboring property to <br />ascertain the effect of the proposed structure on the views, and also <br />note the location of the fence on the north boundary. &,iso, looking <br />at the most current survey, Exhibit F, note the relative locations of <br />nearby houses. <br />The proposed pool addition protrudes 16' further out than the <br />existing "office" extension on the lake side of the house. A portion <br />of the top of the new pool structure will be used as a deck area. <br />Note that the plans are incorrectly drawn, according to the applicant, <br />and the portion of room near the pool indentation will not be <br />constructed, and the "future deck" shown by the architect will not be <br />constructed. The applicant noted the existing grades and expects only <br />minimal grading around the pool foundation will Le necessary. <br />Although both adjacent neighbors have expressed opposition to the <br />proposal, the Planning Commission, at their December meeting, voted 5- <br />1 to recommend approval of the requested variances, finding that: <br />1. Applicant has a hardship in that there is no other feasible <br />location for the pool addition. <br />2. The addition as designed will not substantially encroach on the <br />lake views of neighboring property owners. <br />3. The applicant has shown that he can remove existing hardcover so <br />that there is no net. resulting increase in hardcover in the 75-250' <br />zone. <br />A resolution reflecting the Planning Commission recommendation <br />is attached for your review. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.