02-21-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING rOMMISSION Wednesday, January 17,20U1 (M2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued) being constructed on either side of the house to direct \s^er around the house and gutters being installed on the north side of the house to direct the water toward the lakeshore Drainage has been a concern with tliis application since the property was more iully develc^d than what had been in the past and due to the dose proxiniiiy to adjacent structures. Weinberger indicated the Applicants arc requesting a variance for the dnvewa\ If the dnmvay is expanded, it would result in hardcover beyond the 25 percent limit Weinberger noted the Applicants currently arc at the 25 percent hardcover limit with the items tiui have been omitted. The second item that was omitted is the patio, which is now depicted as a grassy area Ihe Applicants are requesting a variance to construct the patio. Weinberger stated the onginal plan had intended for there to be a full patio door with a walkout At the present time there is no wav to access to the ground, w ith any tvpc of access requiring a variance Weinberger indicated there is approximately a three to four foot drop from the patio door to the ground Weinberger stated the State Building Code docs not permit a door to open out witiiout a safe landing The City of Orono has required that the patio doon be permanently fixed so they cannot be opened Weinberger indicc ed the natural grade of the land lias been altered to accommodate a step-down patio in this area Weinberger sta,ed the grading that lus been done in this area was approv ed Grading in excess of two and a half feet would be considered an encroachment on the average setback Being tlut it is a ground level patio, that area could be paved (with a variance) witliout it being an encroachment into the setback Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, n hardship inherent to the land must be demonstrated Tlie propertv owners have slated tliat liad thev been aware of the hardcov er limitations in this area thev windd have been able to redesign the house to meet those standards, and at this time arc requesting a minimal patio and a liitle additional driveway space to enable better maneuvering of a vehicle due Staff is making a recommendation of denial on this application since it is new construction and the Planning Commission and Citv Council have been consistent in the past on adhering to the 25 percent limit. Staff does not tcel a hardship has been demonstrated that is inherent to the land. Weinberger stated tlie only possible hardship that could be considered would be the irregular shape of tlie shoreline, which has caused more of the propertv to be considered within the 0-75* setback area Bupp mdicated he understands they arr at 100 percent of 'heir o\c> llov ' cr at this time with the present design of the house Bupp stated as way of background (his piopcriy aas ess. it.dlv an unused lor with a small cabin having been located o.. the let Bupp commented it is hii opinion the neighbors m the area adopted this lanu as a small park and arc having trouble dealing with the inconvenience or imposiiioi of the construction of a new residence Bupp slated the construction has caused some distraction to the ne.^hUors as well as some danuge to a grassy aiia wh eh has upset the neighbors, and which he ha.- apologized Bupp stated due to the neighbors' .cmc^. iiv, the construction of their residence has been very carefully scrutinized Bupp stated althoa.h their plans were approved by the City, they were request^ to resurvey the propertv a couple of times, which resulted in the finding that the PAGES