08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

dfilih MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21 ,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2904 RICHARDS. BROWN, Coatteacd) GalTron explained thal the applicant requested an afler-the-ract variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500-1000* zone. This item was tabled at the June meeting to allow applicant to explore ways to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed = 35% = 6.785.6 s.f. Existing » 50.8% = 9.860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.9*/. - 8.908 s.f. Robed Proposal ■ 39.7% - 7,693 s,f. The applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the lower driveway. GafTron staled that if the Planning Commission determines thal the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances w ould be in order As this item w as tabled at the June meeting in order for applicant to work with staff to reduce the hardcover to as near the 35% limit as possible, staff met with the applicant and discussed each item of hardcover on the property. Applicant made some decisions as to the relative importance of each hardcover item to his use of the property. After working w ith a landscape arc’‘ ect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could result in a positive imp...t to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2.167 s.f.. viclding a final 500-1000* hardcover of 7,693 s.f. or 39.7%. Gaffron noted that, while additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels arc integral to his use of the property (patio areas) or which the removal of would reduce the functionality of the site (reduction of the lower driveway surface would make it difficult to maneuver vehicles into that space). Imhcs for CoBskIrratioB 1. The applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.f less than the existing but still exceeding that allowed by City Cedes by 908 s.f. 2. The applicant's acqui ition of the property was finalized before he knew the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. 3. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or arc less than 26* from w etlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. While the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-wa>-s and they appear to a casual observ er as part of this property, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-ways, hence applicant cannot make the property larger 10 reduce the hardcover percenuge. Gaffron indicated that ^taff would make the following recommendations: 1 . If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history PAGE 6 of 37