10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock pjn. («lf M9-2M3 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT,CMttaMtf) accessing the propaly from the adjacent marina. This lot is currently substandard with respect to har^ver and side yard setback. Waalaja staled that, in fact, when calculating hardcover percentages for the 75-250' zone the area within the shared drivew ay easement (490 s.f) w as taken out of the lot area so as not to either help ot hinder the har^ver percentages. This is because this portion of the shared drive doa not benefit the applicant. The area of the shared driveway within the 250-500' zone was added into the calculations for hardcover because the applicant benefits from this portion of the drive. The dramatic decreases in hardcover amounts for the propo^ are the results of the applicant eliminating the drive access through the marina and utilizing the existing shared drive. This includes a net decrease of approximately 413 square feet of hardcover or 13% in the 75-250' zone. In the 250-500' zone there would be a decrease of approximately 754 square feet or 12%. Although Planning Department staff is encouraged by the proposed decreases in hardcover and the existing drive through the marina being eliminated. Waatrya staled that the overall proposal doesn't fit within requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, because the proposal puU the property over on structural coverage. Staff does not find a hardship w hich w ould allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage w hich meets the Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which w ould become non-conforming. 14.9 to 19.4 percent. Allowing this increase in structural coverage would also not fall w ithin what has consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage requirements are strictly followed. Waataja also stated the current side yard setback in this location is 2.8'. and although the applicant isn't proposing to get closer to the property line, the deck would extend diagonally from the 2.8' setback to an 11 ‘ setback where it attaches to the proposed addition. Waat^a reported that staff w ould reconunend: 1. Denial of the proposal due to the increases in structural coverage beyond w hat is allowed by Ordinance. No unique hardship has been presented which would justify expanding the current home's footprint, given alternatives for an addition exist. Chair Smith asked the ^iplicants what they w ished to accomplish with the additioa Mr. Labalt explained that they have a pretty small home and small lot and would like more room to accommodate their family. He noted that hardcover is the level it has atw'ays been and be was attempting to decrease the amount of hardcover on the site. Hawn indicated that the issue she found most difficult was that of structural coverage. PAGE 17 of 25