08-12-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 22,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (H7) m-2791 DA VE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - Continued Weinberger reported that the Planning Commission approved the application 6/0, subject to removal of the old driveway, stairway, and concrete walk. In the Planning Commission ’s opinion the property was fully developed. Staff observed that the new proposal w as a net increase in overall hardcover of 866 s.f. over that which exists, and 1106 s.f. over that which was allowed by previous approvals. Weinberger pointed out that the application is, essentially, an increase from 30% hardcover, where 25% is normally allowed, to 41.9% after even the removals recommended by the Planning Commission. While the Planning Commission and staff agree that an attached garage is a reasonable proposal, staff was imclear why the Planning Commission did not require that the existing detached garage be removed in order to keep hardcover on the site at a minimum level. Staff recommended approval of the variances for the new addition per Planning Commission ’s recommendation, but given the history of the pr >pert>', questioned whether there was valid hardship for allow ing the existing 400 s.f. garage and 80 s.f. of apron to remain. Sansevere observed that staff had used strong language in its recommendation, and questioned Sandra Smith, Planning Commission Representative, what transpired at the last meeting with regard to this application. Smith stated that the 6/0 vote came after lengthy discussion, and reworking of the hardcover percent, after removals, to 25.3% within the 75-250 ’ setback. The Commission found this acceptable, especially in light of the floodplain findings of 1998. The Commission ’s view was that because the City had told the applicant of the floodplain, they rushed into development, and did not propose what they might have had the floodplain not been there. Rahn added that the walkway between the house and existing garage are actually mulch. He pointed out that he is below the 15% allowed structural coverage and not looking for a structural coverage variance. The home, with 168 s.f of small decks, has no concrete patios, and no need for structural coverage variances. Rahn maintained that the only applicable variance is the one proposed for additional hardcover. He stated that in 1997 they were limited in design by what they thought was a floodplain, and that is w hy the home is on one side of the lot and the garage on the other. Sansevere asked staff if the original garage had been attached and the applicant was asking for a 24X24 ’ addition to that garage, how would staff have handled that and would it still have been a hardcover issue. Weinberger stated that there would still be a hardcover issue. In fact, to clarify the hardcover, the 25.3% hardcover was for the entire lot, and you are allowed 25% in the 75-250 ’ setback, so PACE 9 of 35