My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-22-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
07-22-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:16:23 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:37:55 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.
/
555
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
I <br />#02-2791 David and Jodi Rahn <br />I38S Rest Point Road <br />Page 3 of 3 ______________ <br />3.The Planning Commission has determined this property is fully developed. Any further <br />requests to add any hardcover or structure to the property will not be looked upon <br />favorably by the City. <br />4.Final elevations shall be shown on the final site plan/survcy to be submitted with the <br />Building Permit application. <br />Staff Recommeadatlon <br />Because the intent of prior approvals in 1997 and 1998 was to approve only limited hardcover on <br />the site, it should be noted that the current proposal is a net increase in overall hardcover of 866 <br />s.f. over that which exists, and 1106 s.f. over that which was allowed by previous approvals. If <br />the 0-7S' hardcover is attributed to the 75-250' zone allotment as those prior approvals intended, <br />this application is essentially an increase from 2371 s.f. or 30.0 % of the 75-250' zone, to 3317 <br />s.f. or 41.9% after the removals recommended by Planning Commission, where only 25% is <br />normally allowed. Remember that this house was virtually a total rebuild in 1997. <br />Applicant noted that the current garage approved by variances in 1998 creates an unsafe winter <br />access to his residence due to the steep walkways and long distance from the house. Planning <br />Commission and staff agree that an attached garage is a reasonable solution to this problem. <br />However, for reasons unclear to staff. Planning Commission did not require that the existing <br />detached garage be removed in order to keep hardcover on the site at a minimal level. It is staffs <br />position that even though the proposal results in total lot coverage just under 15%, the hardcover <br />increases are excessive. <br />Staff recommends approval of the variances for the new additions per Planning Commission’s <br />recommendation, but given the history of this property, questions whether there is a valid <br />hardship for allowing the existing 400 s.f. garage and 80 s.f of apron to remain. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />Motion to for one of the following; <br />I. Adopt the attached resolution (reflecting Planning Commission recommendation); <br />OR <br />2. Amend the resolution to require removal of the existing detached garage and apron. <br />!
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.