My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-14-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 10:43:33 AM
Creation date
1/11/2023 10:24:46 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.
/
309
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
Thomas stated originally when they submitted (he application tliey did not know that it would be <br />considered as hardcover but that they are now proposing to remove a portion of the driveway to offset the <br />new hardcover. <br />Jurgens noted the Planning Commission typically reviews hardcover on the entire property whenever an <br />application is submitted, and inquired whether the hardcover that was installed in front of the main <br />entranceway has been included in the calculations. <br />Gundlach stated that hardcover was included in (lie calculations. Gundlach indicated the applicants did <br />submit a revised survey that reflects the work that was completed in 2001. <br />Jurgens inquired what was approved in tlic 7S'-2S0* zone. <br />Gundlach stated 7,433 square feet of hardcover was approved in 2001 in (he 7Sā-2S0' zone. <br />Jurgens inquired whether that is (he amount that currently exists in (hat zone. <br />Gundlach indicated it is. Gundlach .stated prior approval was al.so received for the 3,203 scpiare feel in the <br />0-75ā zone. <br />Jurgens stated as long as that hardcover was previously approved, he does not have an issue with it, but <br />tliat he does not believe the amount of lakeshoic constitutes a hardship in this situation. <br />Rahn inquired whether a majority of (lie deck would be above 30 inches, which would be considered <br />structural coverage. <br />Gundlach stated in verifying the elevation of the deck, it was discovered that a railing would be required <br />and that the deck would be considered structural coverage. <br />Kahn noted even witlt (he deck being counted os structural coverage, (his property is well below their <br />structural coverage limit. Rahn commented that it was his understanding the Planning Commission does <br />not like to swap hardcover for structural coverage. <br />Gundlach .stated the .*ti uctural coverage ordinance says (hat if any portion of the deck exceeds six feet in <br />height, it is considered as structural coverage, but that she is sure (he whole deck will not exceed six feet. <br />Ralm stated he does not have a problem with (lie material being proposed to u)ustruct the deck but that he <br />does not like to swap hardcover for structural coverage.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.