10-14-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23,1996 (#7 - #2169 Michael Renard - Continued) Mabusth reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there was a misunderstanding over the hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback It was thought that the proposal was for 26 7% hardcover in that area, and with 420 ’, or I 8® o, hardcover removal proposed, the hardcover would then be at 24 9®/o When it was further reviewed, it was found that the hardcover was proposed at 28.7® o The hardcover is really proposed at 26 7®/o, which maintains the existing hardcover amount in the 75-250' setback One member of the Commission w as of the opinion that hardcover should be held to 25 5®/o With »he remov al of the shed and walkway, hardcover would be held at 25.6®/o and the original recommendation was for 25.5%. Jabbour confirmed that there was a miscalculation in the original application of hardcover. Callahan clarified that the variance has been granted three times, and the applicant wishes to build within the same building envelope Mabusth said this was true, plus there would be removal of hardcover in the 0-75' setback area Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve the variance removal as previously approved or with less hardcover and removals as stated The shed would remain. Jabbour noted that Staff and surveyor failed to note the correct hardcover improvements in the original application. He sees no problem with the current application with the new calculations and asked the motion be amended to reflect approval as currently proposed with the required variance Hurr asked if the original resolution was at 25.5% and was now at 28%. Mabusth said the calculation was incorrect and hardcover existed at Ib.lVo. The applicant is removing hardcover and will retain hardcover at 26.7% The landscape area with plastic at 420 s.f and 48 s.f of concrete pad in the 0-75* area will be removed. Hurr questioned the approval of additional structure for non-structural removals. Jabbour responded that the applicant had been granted the variance and the surv ey was not reflective of w hat was there. Goetten said the determination was made on w'hat was presented and asked it be made clear what the correct calculations are at this time Mabusth noted that the stairway structure is allowed due to the steepness of the topography at shoreline. Jabbour noted that the original application calculations were listed by the previous owner, Mr. Copely. Hurr commented regarding the location of the shed 3' from the lot line being non- conforming.