08-28-1995 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITV' COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 14,1995 (#4 - Donald & Arlene Kielley - Continued ) Mabusth reported the application is for hardcover, structural coverage, and side setback variances for a 10-1/2* x 42 -1/2’ addition to the street or rear side of the residence. The proposal includes reduction in hardcover by the removal of paving and reductions in the 0-75 ’ setback area. The Planning Commission did feel these reductions were modest and asked for further reductions. 866 s.f of plastic underlayment and 280' of paved walkway will be removed. The Plarming Commission specifically asked that the area between the two garages be plamed with grass. Nlabusth said the Planning Commission had asked applicant to reduce the area of coverage of the detached garage. The applicant said he had no basement and needed the space for storage. The additions includes a covered deck, new extrance, and expanded family room and bath as well as a new walkway to the residence. This results in 505 s.f, or 3 4%, increase in new structural coverage with 270 s f for the addition to the principal enclosed structure and 235 s.f for the covered deck. Structural coverage exists at 15.6% and is proposed at 19.0®/o for a variance of 593 s.f or 4®,o. The lot side variance e.\ists with an 8" variance and the new addition would result in a 6' variance. A variance was granted in 1982 for the garage. A condition of that approval required the removal of a shed and the pavement between the garage. Goenen responded that she had been on the Planning Commission at that time where the new garage was allowed The applicant at that time had been told that no more new structure would be allowed. Goetten finds it difficult to allow any more additions at this time with the percentage at 52® o. Jerry Roelofs, contractor, said the paved area was located at the apex of the curve of CoRd 19, and the space was necessaiy to allow a car to back out of the garage in order to proceed forward onto CoRd 19 Hurr questioned the need for 40’ to back up a car. Roelofs said it was needed in order to go forward and make a left turn Mabusth reiterated that the application is for 505 s f of new structural hardcover adding that the code does not define the diftere«ice between structural and non-structural hardcover. The landscaping hardcover was not in the 1982 calculations and the paving was asked to be removed at that time also Jabbour questioned whether this was a case of trading illegal non-conforming hardcover for leual non-conforming hardcover. Callahan questioned how the hardcover incieased from 3816 s.f in 1982 to 5073 s.f. currently in a legal manner. Mabusth did add that hardcover was defined difterently at that time Plastic underlayment was not calculated and no analysis was performed in 1982 Mabusth personally remembeis grass between the garages at that time as well as the extensive paving and the shed, which was removed. 1