My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-16-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
05-16-2005 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/4/2012 10:57:25 AM
Creation date
4/4/2012 10:57:12 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.
/
232
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
. #OS-3102 920 Brow�i Rd.S. <br /> April 14,2005 <br /> Page 5 <br /> General Conuiients <br /> The proposed site grading plan indicates the exisling driveway entrance will remain. This <br /> driveway is less than the required 5' from the side lot line, but its relocation slightly <br /> northward to meet the 5' requirement would result iu the removal of 2 matt�re aspen trees <br /> abutting the ilorth side of the driveway. Topography of the site also would limit the driveway <br /> relocation. Leaving tlie driveway as-is will have ininimal if any impact oii the adjoining <br /> property; a variance to the 5' separation may be appropriate in this case. <br /> The proposed grading plan inchides contours that would direct drauiage toward the <br /> neighboring properties, but proposes to somehow force the drainage eastward along the <br /> property boundaries. A revised grading plan showing additional detail should be provided <br /> priar to Council review. <br /> The proposed house plans show 2' roof overhangs. The zoning code only allows a 1.5' <br /> encroaclunent of a required yard by roof overhasigs. Whether or not a side setback variance <br /> is granted, any roof overhangs extending more than 1.5' into a required yard would have to <br /> be eliminated. <br /> This property is within the defined Shoreland District and subject to hardcover limitations by <br /> virtue of being witlun 1000' of the OHWL of the north basin of Tanager Lake. Although it <br /> does not abut the shoreline, it is suUject to the 75' setback from the 929.4' contour for all <br /> structures. <br /> Summary of Issues for Consideration <br /> l. Is the existing lot size sufficient hardship to support granting of the lot area and width <br /> variances? <br /> 2. Are there any hardships present that support granting of the side setback variances? <br /> Is the 50' wide buildaUle envelope so limiting as to be considered a hardship? <br /> 3. Would granting of side setback variances be appropriate in the context of this <br /> neighborhood aild the locatioiis of neighboring homes? <br /> 4, Are there any other issues with tlus proposed rebuild? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.