My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05/17/2010 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
05/17/2010 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2012 2:33:00 PM
Creation date
8/15/2012 2:32:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
- MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANI�]ING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 17,2010 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,CONTINUED) <br /> proposes to change these to gable dormers. In addition,the applicant is proposing to construct a single- <br /> level addition with a roof top deck in place of a grade level deck on the lakeside of the house and add a <br /> deck and steps. To comply with the side setback,the addition will be 17 square feet smaller than the <br /> deck. The applicant will remove 820 square feet of the driveway that was to have been removed when the <br /> garage was constructed. <br /> When proposing the garage addition the former owner applied for a hardcover variance because his <br /> surveyor's hardcover calculations showed he would have 31.46 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot <br /> zone. In the process of reviewing the application, Staff discovered that the surveyor had neglected to <br /> consider the lagoon at Marina. This increased the area of the 75-150 foot zone. Staff has revised the <br /> hardcover calculations to reflect this change. The revised calculations showed 4482.5 square feet of <br /> hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone. This was only 23.88 percent so a variance was not required. In 2009, <br /> based on these calculations,the applicant was granted a land alteration permit to relocate part of the <br /> driveway. <br /> The proposed encroachment is small and probably would have little to no impact on the lake views of <br /> � adjacent residences. The applicant must demonstrate that a 12' x 23'room addition rather than a 10' x <br /> 23' addition is necessary to provide reasonable use of the house.The information supplied by the <br /> applicant on the hardship documentation form does not accomplish that. <br /> In determining the hardcover, Staff calculated how much of the hardcover increase could be attributed to <br /> the larger garage and deck as well as the required sidewalk and turnaround. The adjusted 2001 hardcover <br /> for the 75-250-foot zone is 5,002 square feet or 24.28 percent. Staff then adjusted the 2010 hardcover <br /> calculations by subtracting the amount of driveway that the applicant proposes to remove since it was not <br /> included in the proposed 2001 calculations. The adjusted 2010 hardcover is 5,943 square feet or 28.85 <br /> percent. This is 941 square feet more than the adjusted 2001 hardcover. <br /> Turner stated the size of the driveway has increased by 943 square feet. On the 2001 survey,the <br /> driveway scales to eight or nine feet wide. On the 2010 survey, it scales to 10 to 11 feet wide. The larger <br /> front deck,pavers at the rear garage door and a new retaining wall added 79 square feet. These increases <br /> total more than 941 square feet because they were offset by the removal of 175 square feet of hardcover <br /> that was included in the 2001 calculations. <br /> The only additional hardcover proposed is 79 square feet for the new lakeshore deck and steps. If the <br /> average lakeshore variance is not approved,the addition would be 63 square feet smaller than the current <br /> deck. Sixty-four square feet would be enough to provide a small deck and steps. <br /> Staff recommends the following: <br /> 1. Approval of the setback variance to change the dormer roof based on the age of the house,the <br /> elimination of insulation and leakage issues,the minor nature of the additional encroachment, and <br /> the improvement to the appearance of the house. <br /> 2. Denial of the average lakeshore variance based on the applicant not demonstrating the necessity <br /> for the variance. <br /> . PAGE 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.