Laserfiche WebLink
^ ’*U::&■■ -s:r <br />►;.. ■; I-:;;: *''^'--'- <br />r-: ' '\ii:- <br />•• ^M’.- .‘‘••*% w <br />iv.';':'"*i <br />t*gsfem- ■ ■iwK£e?: <br />~=v=':r; <br />\-‘;-.-\i -i;::=\-v.-M <br />Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Prom: <br />* <br />Date: <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />August 8, 1988 <br />Subject: #1316 Gary Barr, 3034 Casco Point Road - <br />Variance - Public Hearing <br />Application - Request for variances to hardcover, <br />setback, and accessory structure floor area. <br />structure-to-structure <br />Zoning District - LR-lC <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Application <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />B <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />H <br />I <br />- Plat Map <br />- Property Owners List <br />- Survey <br />- Staff Letter Dated 7/11/88 <br />- Plans of Proposed Building <br />- Revised Proposal With 3 Alternatives S Staff Notations <br />- Staff Hardcover Review <br />- Staff Suggested Alternatives <br />Pertinent Pacts - <br />1. Hardcover: Based on staff calculations, existing hardcover on the <br />property is virtually all within the 75-250' zone and is 29.9%. <br />Applicant proposes to remove a backyard area of wood chips underlayed <br />by plastic, for a reduction of 825 s.f. or 3.1%. The other area of <br />hardcover that applicant proposed to remove is not hardcover in <br />staff's opinion, since the only rock in this area is a little bit that <br />has washed down from the steep gravel driveway (area west of garage, <br />between garage and driveway). With Option A, which applicant prefers, <br />the final hardcover is 27.5%. With Option B, final hardcover is <br />29.4%. With Option C, final hardcover is 29.8%. Staff does not <br />understand why Options B & C leave the pavement between the two <br />garages in place. Applicant should address |>his. <br />2.Setbacks, Structure-to-Structure: Applicant is proposing to construct <br />a second garage that is uphill from but shares the same foundation <br />wall with the existing garage structure. This would result in the <br />structures being considered as attached, creating an accessory <br />structure of approximately 1,700 s.f. footprint area and total usable <br />floor space of about 2,700 s.f. <br />Applicant's Option B would be to move the proposed garage 10' east and <br />setback 8' from the existing garage. He would prefer not to do Option <br />B because he claims he will loose 4 trees and will not be able to <br />reduce the hardcover as much as with Option A. Option C is to move <br />the garage 12' east from Option A and maintain a 10' setback to the <br />existing garage and to the lot line. He claims he will loose 7 or <br />trees with this scheme. <br />;:'V< ■ <br />• y. <br />' ‘"m <br />r ^ - <br />.). <br />; <br />1 <br />f <br />ie:: <br />Zoning Fi <br />August 8, <br />Page 2 of <br />Sta£ <br />the <br />setb <br />3. Acce <br />gara <br />appr <br />over <br />exis <br />it, <br />gars' <br />for <br />subs <br />has <br />Olscussio: <br />Thex <br />constralr <br />additions <br />car garag <br />structure <br />garage wa <br />that time <br />Staf <br />owners whc <br />concerned <br />that ther <br />dwelling <br />to verify <br />line goln <br />windows, <br />garage whe <br />used as a <br />Staff Recc <br />Lack! <br />this over <br />area in wl <br />the applic <br />the requ <br />Alternatii <br />of the ex <br />driveway <br />recommend <br />an extreme <br />real hard: <br />structural <br />the added <br />Options B <br />applicant <br />structure