Laserfiche WebLink
FILE *05-3134 <br />12 July 2005 <br />Page 3 0(3 <br />have Stated that due to the narrowness of Walters Port Lane a large driveway is necessary <br />in order to accommodate their parking needs. The applicants are proposing to construct a <br />272 s.f. garage on their home. The side-load garage will also necessitate the addition of <br />172 s.f. of bituminous to access from the side. To offset the addition, the applicants have <br />proposed to reduce the existing driveway by 297 s.f., however the project will still result <br />in a total 75’-250’ hardcover level of 57% where 25% is normally allowed. The existing <br />landscape areas on the property that may or may not be lined with landscape weed barrier <br />material should be verified and all weed barrier plastic or fabric should be removed as <br />part of this review process. <br />Hardship Slatcmcnt <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 Analyiis <br />In emuUertmt •^iaOtom for vortonct, the Ptanntng CommtsMton shatt comtder the effect of the <br />ptopoui vortonce npon the keottk, tefety oiut wetfere of the community, existing end anticipated traffic <br />condMons, HgHt and air, danger flre, risk to the public safely, and the effect on values of property In <br />tke surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances <br />from tke literal provisions of rite Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would rause <br />undue hardsh^ because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and <br />shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the <br />spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br />Staff finds that although there may be a need for a slightly larger driveway to <br />accommodate occasional guesi parking, the applicants* driveway and excessively large <br />brick patio on the lakeside of the home are areas for potential hardcover reductions. The <br />garage addition and bituminous apron are proposed to be constructed over an existing <br />landscape area and will add 444 s.f. of hardcover to the site. The 297 s.f. of hardcover <br />removals proposed by the applicants does not completely offset this addition. The <br />Planning Commission should discuss whether or not additional hardcover removals arc <br />warranted. Staff would suggest that the lake side brick patio, horseshoe driveway, and <br />extensive retaining and timber walls should be reviewed. <br />Issues for Cousidcratiou <br />1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the hardcover amount proposed by the <br />applicant is sufficient? If not, what is an appropriate amount considering the existing <br />site conditions? <br />2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Staff RccommcBdation <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the extent of harder.ver removals to allow the <br />construction of a 272 s.f. garage addition to the home consistent with hardcover removals <br />resulting in levels the Platming Commission deems appropriate. <br />Additionally, consistent with past practice, the landscape areas on the property that may <br />or may not be lined with land^pe weed barrier material should be verified and all weed <br />barriers should be removed as part of this application. <br />J