My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-23-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
10-23-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:34:36 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:29:02 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.
/
439
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
9 <br />r- <br />L <br />Request for Council Action continued <br />Page 2 <br />October 19,2000 <br />#2630 Gregg and Stephanie Larsen <br />The motion as stated in the draft minutes was to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone at a level of <br />4,506 s.f. (49.8%). The motion verbatim by Commissioner Lindquist was as follows: "I’d like to <br />make a motion to approve Application #2630for Gregg and Stephanie Larsen, 1380 Rest Point Road, <br />variance to build a patio no bigger than was previously - we’re approving a variance, basically a <br />hardcover variance, not to exceed 4,506 square feet in the 75-250 ’, and to approve the variance in the 0- <br />75 ’ up to 882 square feet This does include removal ofthe existing 1,727squarefeet of landscape fabric <br />in the 75-250 ’ and also any landscape fabric in the 0-75 ’. ’’ The motion was then modified to add the <br />six recommendations from the City Engineer ’s letter, and that a landscape plan be submitted for <br />screening of the walls. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. <br />During the Planning Commission discussion, and after the 4,506 s.f. figure had been arrived at, the <br />applicant asked whether he could trade existing driveway to get a patio larger than 135 s.f. There <br />was no clear answer to this during the discussion nor in the motion. <br />ANALYSIS OF REQUEST <br />Staff suggests it would be inconsistent to allow such a driveway-for-deck tradeoff when hardcover <br />is so excessive on a site. If the driveway hardcover is non-essential, then it should be removed and <br />not credited toward some other form of excessive hardcover. No specific plan for driveway <br />reductions has been submitted by the applicant. <br />Council should also consider the history of past variances on this property, which unfortunately was <br />not presented by staff during the Planning Commission review process. This site received a variance <br />in 1987 to allow a room and attached garage addition. Hardcover allowed by that variance (see <br />Resolution No. 2217, Exhibit C) in the 75-250' zone was 2833 s.f for the house/garage/porch, 810 <br />s.f for driveway, and 100 s.f. for landscape areas, for a total of 3,743 s.f. The existing house-garage- <br />porch in 2000 has not changed significantly e.xcept for removal of the 135 s.f deck, but the existing <br />driveway has grown from 810 s.f to 1,299 s.f without any City approvals. <br />ISSUES FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER <br />1.Should the applicants’ 75-250' hardcover allowance (absent any contemplated driveway <br />removals) be 4,506 s.f based on the incorrect number arrived at during the Planning <br />Commission meeting, or the corrected number of 4,219 s.f? <br />Staff Recon..i.codatioD: 4,219 s.f. <br />-I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.