11-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FILEt03-»50 Nov*mMr 7 2003 Pag* 2 of 6 b^een the front lot line and the principal structure on the property. (2) Side. 30 feet minimum and not within the required side yard area. (3) Rear. 30 feet minimum and not within the required rear >ard area (50* in iheRR-lB). (Code I984.§ 10.03(14KD)) List orEibibils A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. E.xisling &. Proposed Sur\c> 'Site Plan D. Submitted Plans and Elevations E. Letters horn City Stair F. Alternative location for sport court meeting setbacks G. Sport Court Contract H. Property Chsners List I. Plat Map J. Photos Backf round In June 2003. the applicants were notified by a letter (Exhibit El) from Orono BuilJine Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was required for their ncwlv constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified that the sport court did not meet the required 30* side setback as it was placed less than 6 ’ from the side lot line. In the s^c letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height restrictions Ihe applicants were unawjue that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work conducted on their p-o^rty. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court, which the ownrrTEJwb1"G) responsibility for obtaining permits upon the property In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to rcmo%e the 2.>80 5 r sport court as no permit had been applied for nor did it meet required setbacks. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport :ourt and applied for an Planning Director. Mike Oaffron. dated September 10. -003. informed the applicants that their variance application was incomplete pending subRiMUl or^tral Thai knc. attached as Exhibit E2. gate the appiicants a deadline of October I. 2003 in order to renuin on the October Planning Commission agenda. The deadUne for the October meeting passed without submittal of the required materials tmd therefore the application dropped off the October agenda. Because this was an after- the-fact application. Staff did not want the issue to be overlooked and sent a letter to the aMtciuus (attached Exhibit E3) r«)uiring submittal of Ihe materials by November I 2003 or ^oval of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action bv the City.' At that time. Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into compliance with