07-24-1995 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 24, 1995 ( #6 - Mary & Gene Zulk - Continued) • Mabusth reported that the application is for a 10x26' covered deck addition to the street side of the residence. No setback variances are required. There is an increases in lot coverage and 48 s.f of additional hardcover. 175 s.f of stone patio will be removed. The Planning Commission said they did not wish to see applications unless additional hardcover is removed. Mabusth said the improvement is the least amount to make the best use of the lot. The allowed structural coverage is 15 %, or 1711 s.f., and exists at 17.6 and proposed at 19.9%. Mabusth confirmed that the increase in hardcover results from a structural improvement, while the removal of stone patio is not structural hardcover. Callahan said several recent applications address this issue of exceeding the lot coverage and hardcover limits. According to the code, Callahan said a real hardship must be demonstrated in order to exceed the allowable structural coverage; adding that eliminating flower beds to enable additional structure does not fit the comprehensive plan's intent. The non - structural should have no bearing on structural. Callahan asked that Staff and the Planning Commission to adhere to the policy. Mabusth said the Planning Commission does look at reducing hardcover. in this case, the commission knew they were dealing with a substandard lot and looked at where removal could be accomplished. isHurr said if the deck were reduced in width to 8' instead of the 10' requested, this would satisfy the hardship and enable the applicant to still receive what they desire, and would result in no gain of hardcover. • The applicant said he would prefer the 10' width adding that the lot is small, and he has been unable to obtain any additional land. The neighbors are said to be aware of the project as well as supportive of it. Zulk said the addition fits the house and the neighborhood and will allow safe access to two doors. An elderly relative is living at the home. Zulk commented that the Planning Commission had said no more hardcover would be allowed on the property without existing structure removed, and he has no intention of doing so. Hurr said the safety issue does not relate to the porch itself. It was also added that the applicant was aware of the substandard size of the lot when he purchased the property. Hurr said a hardship would be not to have access that was safe. Kelley added that this still does not speak to the issues brought up by Mayor Callahan. If the structural hardcover is allowed, the hardcover would still be over the limits even if reduced. 3