Laserfiche WebLink
FILE#05-3134 <br /> 12 July 2005 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> ' have stated that due to the narrowness of Walters Port Lane a large driveway is necessary <br /> in order to accommodate their parking needs. The applicants are proposing to construct a <br /> . 272 s.f. garage on their home. The side-load garage will also necessitate the addition of <br /> 172 s.f. of bituminous to access from the side. To offset the addition, the appliclnts have <br /> proposed to reduce the existing driveway by 297 s.f., however ihe project will still result <br /> in a total 75'-250' hardcover level of 57% where 25% is normally allowed. The existing <br /> landscape areas on the property that may or may noi be lined with landscape weed barrier <br /> material should be verified and all weed barrier plastic or fabric should be removed as <br /> part of this review process. <br /> Hardship Statement <br /> Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> Hardship Analysis <br /> I�r coi�sidering applications for variance, the Planning Co»u�rissian s/1u11 cofrsirler tlre effect of t/re <br /> proposecl vnriance«pon tlre/teultlr,safery nnd welfare of t/re conurauriry, e�istiitg n�rd anticipated traffic <br /> conrlitroirs, /iglrl arrd air, rlunger of frre, risk to the public s�rfety, and the effect o�r va/ues of property i�r <br /> the surroturdi�rg area. Tlte Plartning Conimission slrall consider recontntei�di�rg approval for vr�riafrces <br /> front t/re litera!provisio�rs nf tlre Zon�irg Code in i�rstances wlrere t/reir strict enforce»:errt woer/d crruse <br /> rrndue hardsflip because of circu»rstunces �uriryue to the irrdividua!properry unrler carsideration, und <br /> si�all reconrme�rtl approval o�r/y w/refr it is den:onstrated t/�at sucfr actiofrs wi!! be in keepi�rg wit/1 tlte <br /> spirit anrl intent of tlre Orono Zonirrg Code. <br /> Staff finds that although there may be a need for a slightly larger driveway to <br /> accommodate occasional guest parking, the applicants' driveway and excessively large <br /> brick patio on the lakeside of the home are areas for potential hardcover reductions. The <br /> garage addition and bituminous apron are proposed to be constructed over an existing <br /> landscape area and will add 444 s.f. of hardcover to the site. The 297 s.f. of hardcover <br /> removals proposed by the applicants does not completely offset this addition. The <br /> Planning Commission should discuss whether or not additional hardcover removals are <br /> warranted. Staff would suggest that the lake side brick patio, horseshoe driveway, and <br /> extensive retaining and timber walls should be reviewed. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the hardcover amount proposed by the <br /> applicant is sufficient? If not, what is an appropriate amount considering the existing <br /> site conditions? <br /> 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Planning Staf!' recoinmends approval of the extent of hardcover removals to allow the <br /> construction of a 272 s.f. garage addition to the home consistent with hardcover removals <br /> resulting in levels the Planning Commission deems appropriate. <br /> Additionally, consisient with past practice, the landscape areas on the property that may <br /> or may not be lined with landscape weed barrier material shoulci be verified and all weed <br /> barriers should be removed as part of this application. <br /> 3 <br />