My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
04-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/24/2012 4:23:19 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:15:32 PM
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.
/
540
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
, r �� . � <br /> � <br /> �y�/�"'{�Y . <br /> � � MPi 1TJTES OF TH� <br /> ORONO PLAN�IING COlYI1VIISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 20, 2007 . <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. , <br /> � nonconforming in terrns of setback�vill remain in place, but its load-bearing capacity will be taken <br /> over by netiv pier footinQs and beams; i.e.,the foundation becomes a i�on-load bearin�enclosure. <br /> Gaffron stated accordin`to the demolition plans; it appears that most of the estecior first floor walls <br /> are intended to remain, but they rvill have new windo�v and door openings. It also appears fcom tlle <br /> plans that the e�istin�secoild-story floor wil] be raised about t�vo feet, and porlions of the seco►ld- <br /> sto�y walls are to be saved. The architect notes that due to the e�istin�house bein�balloon framed, � <br /> the upper story�val Is can be saved and added onto. . <br /> Staff betieves that this project is followinQ in the footsteps of dozens of othecs we have tivatched <br /> through the years�vhere very little of the existing home �v'til actually be saved aud it 4vill become a <br /> coizlplete rebuild. Thc only difference between the current plari and the one revie�ved last summec is <br /> � that the �enecal footprii�t of the base home is in the same location as the existin;home. � <br /> 6. Because the remodeling project etitends outside tlte e�isting walls of the house and includes an <br /> addition,hardcover clearly cotnes into play. The cun•ent proposal results in less hardcover tllan�vhat <br /> currently e�i5ts on the site, but the pool still constitutes e�cessive hardcover on the pcopei-ty. Tlle pool . • , <br /> �ti�as constructed via b��ilclin� permits issued in 198=�that required the pool and all hardcover to be at � � <br /> least 7� feet from the lake. The survey presented at that time indicated it�vould be 77 feet from the � <br /> lake. For whatever reasons,the pool today is 67 feet fcom the shore and its patio is 6� feet from the <br /> shore. The nool e�tends past the avera�e lakeshore setback. It is Staff's assumption that grade level <br /> pools at that time�vere not considered as an avecage setback encroachment but todati�they are. <br /> Gaffron recommended tl�e P.lanni�lQ Commission provide direction to the�applicants and tl�en tab(e tlle . <br /> applicatiun for appropriate revisions and/or additional information, . . <br /> S1110I1I��tated he did spend some time discussina�vith Planner Gaffron options for'remodelina the . <br /> • hou�e and ���hether that �vou!d br ielsiole. Smolil: pOlilt2C� 011[t112 mecll1t11L'c'�.I rooizi�c�irr�ntly i�� <br /> cirfi��i!�to reLch ;1t�ri���tllc �ti�i^ter mo:�ths. �1'I11CR 1�'L�lllCl �'� rectifi�Cl ��'ICIl Clll� F��uj?ct. . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.