My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-19-2008 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
05-19-2008 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2012 8:41:20 AM
Creation date
7/27/2012 8:41:14 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
112
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).
View images
View plain text
� ;rtt <br /> FILE 08-3367 <br /> May 19,2004 <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br /> same size as the existing shed). It would house the stairway from the garage down to the <br /> main level,the steps from the main level down to the garage basement, and the stairs from <br /> the upper level of the existing house to the level above the garage. It would also link the <br /> existing front door with the new front door in the southwest wall of the house. <br /> Measuring from the highest e�cisting grade adjacent to the proposed garage,the.house would <br /> have a peak height.of just less than 29 feet and a defined height of about 26 feet. However, <br /> because the garage floor would be more than 6 feet above existing grade for nearly the entire <br /> perimeter,the basement under the garage would be considered a story, giving the house three <br /> stories. Measured from the street the peak height would be�about 24 feet. <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis � <br /> In considering applications for variance, tl:e Planning Commission shall consider the effect of tl:e proposed • � <br /> variance-upon tlie/:ealt/e, safety and welfare of t/:e community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, <br /> Iig/it and air, danger of fire, risk to t/ie public safety, and t/:e effect on values of property in t/ie surrounding <br /> area. Tl:e Planning Commission sl:all consider recommending approval for variances from t/ee literal <br /> provisions of tl:e Zo�:ing Code in instances wltere t/:eir strict enforcement would cause undue I:ardsl:ip <br /> because of circumstances unique to tlre individual property under consideration, and sl:all recommend , <br /> approval only wl:en it is demonstrated t/iat suc/i actions will be in keeping wit/t t/:e spirit and intent of t/ie <br /> Orono Zoning Code. � <br /> Issues for Consideration � <br /> Are the issues with the grading plan solvable? The City Engineer indicates the�concept of <br /> routing the road drainage along the west property line is workable. It appears the adjacent <br /> property does not have the swale that was part of its approved grading plan. There was an <br /> eight inch and a four inch drain tile under the swale. These drain tile have been plugged or � <br /> removed so the applicants property receives all the road drainage. Staff is trying to <br /> determine the status of the drain tile. <br /> , � Is the proposed level of str•uctural coverage necessary? The Commission should consider if <br /> the size of the garage and entry/stair addition can be reduced. <br /> Can hardcover be reduced? The Commission should consider if the driveway chould be <br /> narrower than proposed. The minimum width is 16 feet at the garage door and 8 feet at the <br /> street. Reducing the driveway to 16 feet wide would reduce hardcover by about 1 percent. <br /> ` Can the vaYiance for the number of stories be eliminated? For the garage basement to not be <br /> considered a story the garage floor would have to be lowered about three feet. To stop water <br /> � from running down the driveway into the garage there would need to be a low point in the <br /> driveway lower than the garage floor, making the grade of the driveway exceed the usual <br /> maximum of 10 percent." Removing either the basement or the level above the garage would <br /> eliminate the variance. If the basement were removed by filling the area under the garage <br /> there would be no difference in the mass of the structure. While it may seem the essence of <br /> • common sense to grant this variance, it could create a unwanted precedent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.