Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
\ N <br />> V <br />To:Orono Planning Commission Members <br />Mayor Callahan and Oront> Councilmembcrs <br />Ron MtH>rse. Citv Administrator <br />From: <br />Date: <br />Subject: <br />Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Mav 10. 19d4 <br />3Id!2 rim Hillman. 400 I.eaf Street - Variances - R-ferred itaek to Planning <br />Commission by the Couneil tor Further Consideration <br />Lis! ©r Exhibits <br />A - <br />B - <br />C - <br />D - <br />Staff Memo to Council 5 4 04 <br />Applicant's Original Statement of Hardships <br />Floor Plans'Eievattons <br />Proposed Sui^ey Site Plan <br />Status off Application <br />Since the Planning Commission review, staff received new information confirming that <br />there exists a legal recorded easement in favor of the property to the east ov er the southern 20’ <br />of the property . <br />Revised lot coverage facts arc reviewed as tollows: <br />Lot area = 36.239 s.f <br />Adjusted lot area ^ 32.899 s.f. (reduction of 3,340 s.f. of driveway casement) <br />Allowed = 4.934.85 s.f or 15% <br />Existing *= 3,069.3 s.f or 9.32% <br />Proposed = 5.29S.9 s.f or 16.1% (2,229.6 s.f of additional structure. This Includes <br />a 26* X 6 ’ upper level deck on south side of structure.) <br />Variance =* 364.05 s.f. or 1.1% <br />1 he Couneil considered the application and raised the following questions during the <br />review: <br />1.If there is to be a new foundation placed under the existing residence and the <br />entire area beneath the foundation to receive 4’ of fill, why can ’t the structure be <br />relocated on the property to more closely conform to the setback requirements? <br />One member questioned why the house is not redesigneii to fit within the <br />approved building envelope. <br />Council voiced maior concern with the fact that the applicant ’s hobby of car collection <br />seemed to be overtaking the se\erely limited property, questioning the number ot accessory <br />structures and now the two-level garage to be incorporated within the proposed principal <br />structure. The application is referred back to the Planning Commission not only to consider the <br />new information concerning a lot coverage excess but to work with applicant to aducc the need <br />or number of setback variances required with the improvement.