My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-17-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
01-17-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2012 2:16:33 PM
Creation date
5/17/2012 11:33:25 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.
/
499
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
. <br /> #OS-3135 3165 North Shore Drive <br /> J�nuary 12,2006 <br /> _ Page 5 <br /> 2) Engineering design needed for 10' high retaining walls at garage entrance. � <br /> 3) The 2350 c.y. of fill could be substantially reduced if house was moved north and west <br /> and angled slightly. 2350 cLibic yards translates to 235 truckloads entering the site. <br /> Applicant has indicated the primary reason he proposes to build in the same location as <br /> the existing house is related to views of the lake. <br /> 4) The existing foundation needs to be reviewed, as applicant hopes to re-use portions of it, <br /> and soils analysis is also recommended. <br /> 5) Need to provide 2-10-100 year drainage calculations. <br /> It is also noted that the plan proposes fill along the south lot line against the retaining wall on the <br /> Wagener property, requiring the cooperation of that owner. Peter Johnson's letter (Exhibit J) <br /> objects to the fill placemeilt withiii 5' of the property boiuzdary. Absent Wagener's approval, <br /> this will require a grading plan revision along that boundary. <br /> Variance Hardship Statement <br /> Applicants have provided a hardship statement, and should also be asked for their testimony <br /> regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> In considering applications for va�iance, t/re Plurrning Conrn:issioit sleull consider the effect of tlie proposed <br /> vuriance upo�r t/ie fieu/tlt, safety air�l welfare of t/ie coninurnity, eListing «nd aiaticipated traffrc conditions, <br /> liglrt unr!rrir, rlanger of frre, risk to the public sufety, and the effect o�r va/ues of property in the surroundi►rg <br /> �reu. T/ie Pla�uri�rg Cofn»tissiat sluil! co�rsirler reconz»tendirrg upprovrr! for variances from the literal <br /> provisions of the Zoni�tg Code i�t instunces wliere 1/teir slrict e�rforcefr:ent wou1J crruse trnrlue liarrls/iip <br /> because of circu»rstunces irnique lo tlte i�rdividi�rrl propert�� u�:der co�rsidera�iorr, arid slrnl! recomme�rd <br /> approvn! only wlleir it is demoi:strated t/urt sirch uctio�is wi!! be ire keepifrg wit/1 tlie spirit u�ad inte�:t of tfie <br /> Orono Zoniiig Code. <br />- The average lakeshore setback variance request is a result of the remote location of the adjacent <br /> residence to the south, which is located more than 300' from the lake, in line with other homes <br /> on Bo1u1's Poiiit. The applicants propose to mitigate the impacts of the encroachment by <br /> building a flat roof home of 30' height (measured from the pre-existing grade), which has less <br /> impacts than would a typical steeply pitched roof honle, but potentially more impacts than the <br /> relatively low-profile, one-and-two-level existing home. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.