My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-12-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
08-12-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:17:04 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:39:50 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.
/
369
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, July 22,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.u. <br />(UT) U02-279I DAVE AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD ~ VARIANCES ~ <br />Continued <br />actually, the area as proposed is about 41%. To answer the question, would staff have supported <br />this, there are other approvals in the neighborhood that have more hardcover than this lot, with <br />somewhat recent approvals within the past five years. However, in most of those cases the <br />propel^ owners did not actually increase the amount of hardcover on their property, but instead <br />were likely allowed to trade existing hardcover, that existed prior to the ordinances, in order to <br />trade-off for new hardcover. This said, Weinberger stated that st-iT would not necessarily have <br />recommended approval just because they did not have 15% structural coverage. Weinberger <br />maintained that hardcover and massing are important elements to think about, because if every <br />lot were allowed to develop to 15%. there would be no need for the hardcover ordinance. <br />Murphy asked why, in past variances, were they told in such strong language they could not have <br />any additional hardcover ever. Murphy asked how the applicant planned to use the existing <br />garage that would become a shed. <br />Rato indicated that it was his intention to remove the existing driveway. The garage would <br />maintain its overhead door and likely become storage for a car or boat. Green space or mulch <br />would occupy the space where the driveway had been and they would bring the boat or car out a <br />couple of tunes a year. He stated that the driveway was class 5 and would likely be difficult to <br />remove even after digging down three feet, but they would do so. <br />Murphy asked if class 5 was considered hardcover. <br />Weinberger stated that class 5 is considered hardcover, if It is driven on and compacted by <br />vehicles. The applicant would be required to remove the class 5 and replace it with grass. <br />Mu^hy asked if the garage would still be considered a garage and hardcover as a function of the <br />applicants continued use. He questioned whether the City allows a garage to sit in the middle of <br />a property with no bituminous roadway to it, but allow access to it, and the access not be <br />considered hardcover. <br />Weinberger staled thal these exist, as in the case of pole buildings. The idea is that if the building <br />have a driveway, the City has not considered it a garage and it has not been a concern. <br />With the sit^tion on this property, and m past history, where you have a garage that looks like a <br />garage, the City has found that people will tend to plow them in winter and use them as <br />dnveways and garages. That would be staffs concern. He noted that if the building were <br />actually converted to something else, without a garage door, that would eliminate that concern. <br />Murphy asked why it was stated that no additional hardcover shall ever be allowed. <br />PACE 10 of 35
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.