My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-16-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
10-16-2006 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2012 3:30:23 PM
Creation date
6/13/2012 11:38:09 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.
/
1749
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
l,� <br /> #06-3240 Basement Sc Story Definitions <br /> October 12,2006 <br /> Page 5 <br /> Oiie of the probleiizs with our fiiiictional definition, ineasuring up from�lie floor below, is fillat <br /> it does not take into account variations ui basemeirt ceiling lieiglits. Consider two tluee-level <br /> buildings on completely flat lots th�.t appeas ideiitical in visual heiglit to the observer and have <br /> the saine "main floor" elevation above the ground. The one with a basement that goes deeper <br /> iiito the grouild, say with a 12' ceiling aud having 5'above grade, 7' below grade, would be <br /> coiisidered as having a baseiiient and two stories tulder our fiiiictional defiiiition. Tlie one with <br /> an 8' ceiling, witli the same 5' above gracle but oi11y 3' below gracle, would be considered as 3 <br /> stories a.nd be disallowed. Tliis needs to be rectified. (See sketch attached) <br /> Case History � <br /> The issue at 1300 Spruce Place two years ago arose fio�il a deterniination that tlie lower level <br /> as initially proposed was a story, because it did iiot meet our fimctional definition of <br /> `basement'; i.e. the lowest level did not have at least 50 perceiit of its perimeter walls covered <br /> ' to a height of at least 6' above the lowest floor level. � <br /> The solution we gi-udgingly accepted at that tinie was to allow tlie grade at a portion of the low <br /> � side to be artificially raised to nieet the 6'. coverage requirenlent by briiiging in fill and <br /> constilicting a retaining wall to, hold it in place, at soiiie tuidefined distance from the � <br /> foundation wall. We recognized tlus was not a good solution,but at filie time we coiicluded we <br /> had to accept it. It was a bad solution because of the following: . <br /> 1) It caused difficulty in establishing proper drainage around the house due to the wall's <br /> proxiinity to the side lot line... � <br /> 2) � It visually still liad the potential to make the house seein exceedingly ta11 because the <br /> retaining wall fiom a distaiice could appear as a foundation wall, not a iiatt.ual part of <br /> the grade around the house... ' <br /> 3) Neither the buyer nor tlle neighboring propei�ty owiier wanted the fill and wall�to <br /> happeii once the house was conipleted... <br /> Siiice ihen, and as a result of that applicatiou and others, we changed our fitnctional definition <br /> to require the 6' foundatioii coverage to be inet based on pre-existing grades. This has <br /> iinpacted how architects aud others are designing a.iid siting homes, but has resulted in a <br /> iitunber of hoiiies having lower profiles in the topography than they niight hlve had... which I <br /> believe PC and Council see as a good thiiig. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.