Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson I FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: September 6, 1988 SUBJECT: #1314 Gerald & Candice Rowlette, 3775 Bayside Road - Variance - Resolution - Addendum to Memo of August 17, 1988 PLEASE REVIEW THE MEMO AND THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 17, 1988 Since my August 17th memo, Mr. Rowlette has advised staff that the concrete patio is actually in three 7'x20' sections parallellinq the house. He is proposing to remove the most southerly 7x20' section and leave the 2 remaining sections (about 14x20' ) in place. On 9-6-88 I visIted the property and verified the sectioning of the patio, is trhee sections 19.5' in length and 6, 7'6" and 7'6" respectively in width, and also noted that part of the deck is over the patio. this resulted in my recalculation of existing hardcover (attached). Existing hardcover on the property is 3966 s.f., about 2/5 of which is in the 0-75' setback zone. Allowable hardcover on the property (25% of 75-250' zone area) is 4850 s.f. Removal of the 116 s.f. patio section as proposed by applicant will result in about 3820 s.f. total. hardcover. An approximation of percentages would then be: .4 x 3820 = 15k8 a.f./28,125 s.f. = 5.4% in 0-75' .6 x 3820 = 2292 s.f./19,400 s.f. = 11.8% in 75-250' To clarif• his reasons for wanting to keep the northerly sections, I have asked Mr. Rowlette to provide a letter tating his position (attached). STAFF RION While staff originally recommended removal of the entire 20'x20' patio, discussions at the Planning Commission level resulted in a Planning Commission recommendation to allow half of the patio to remain. This was based on the applicant's existing problems with roof runoff leaving an ice build-up in front of the basement access door, which results in the need to chip ice from the concrete every winter. The applicant contends that it is easier to chip ice from concrete then a wooden deck. .''e also suggests that due to the approximately 3' roof overhang over that concrete, that the single 6' wide patio section along the house would not be sufficient. The attached resolution reflects a removal of the southerly 10'x20' half of the patio. Conditions 1 an,' 2 and finding 3 (d) can he revised as the Councils sees fit, to accommodate whatever portions of patio the Council wishes to have removed.