My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-2000 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
06-19-2000 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2023 4:06:36 PM
Creation date
3/16/2023 3:59:25 PM
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.
/
297
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).
View images
View plain text
i » <br />To;Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members <br />Ron Moorse, City Administrator <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator <br />April 13,2000 <br />Subject: #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place - Variance <br />Zoning Dbtrict: <br />Lot Area: <br />LR-IC <br />13,030 s.f. <br />One Family Lakeshore Residential District (Vj Acre) <br />(0.29 acre) <br />____________________________________^ ^ X' <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Notice of Council Action <br />B - Additional Information Submitted to Council by Applicant 4-10-00 \ ^ <br />\/ VC - Staff Addendum of 4-5-00 <br />D - Staff Memo & Exhibits for 4-10-00 Council Meeting <br />At the March meeting. Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of this request based on <br />excessive lot coverage. Applicant had requested that PC act at that time rather than table it for -A, <br />revision. After a number of subsequent discussions with staff, prior to the Council meeting applicant <br />suggested some alternative method for revising the nature of the deck to make it no longer definable * ’ <br />as a structure for lot coverage purposes. Council briefly reviewed the alternatives and referred the <br />application back to Planning Commission for further consideration. <br />Exhibit B is a copy of the sur\'cy and the site photo from the lake side. Applicant proposes to add <br />a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would <br />technically (per Building Official Lyle Oman) allow removal of the deck railing, which currently <br />is about 9' above: ^.i side at its highest point. Most of the deck platform is less than 6' above grade, and <br />would be entirely less than 6' above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. <br />Applicant suggests that the criteria for considering this structure as lot coverage will no longer be <br />met once the grade is raised and the railing is removed. The code states as follows: <br />"The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: <br />2.Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar "open" structures when partially <br />enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than 6' above grade <br />level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6' above grade <br />level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage)." <br />If the deck is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed <br />addition becomes conforming at 14.9%. <br />/ <br />1i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.