Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL ME�TING <br /> NIONDAY,JULY 9, 2001 <br /> (#01-2686 Suzlnne :�ncl Terry Jolinson, Continued) ' <br /> The Planning Conunissioii recommended approv�l of the application with the <br /> understanding lhat hardcover in the 75—250' setback area woulcl be limited to 50%, <br /> reducing it by 220 s.f, from tl�e plan presented. The applicants reduced hardcover by <br /> removing a portioil of the drivewly and existing walkways. The Plaiming Couimission � <br /> agreed tlle hardcover and str�ictural coverage were consistent with the oiher properties in <br /> . the neighborhood. <br /> , Mr. Joluison stlted that he h1s worked with the City to minimize hardcover. , <br /> Nyglyd stated Ch�t he wottld have trouble approving�n increase ii1 l�ardcover on the <br /> property. Mr. Julu�son st�ted that there woulcl be an overall reduction to the hardcover, and <br /> they were trying to create a parking area because there is no on-street parking by their <br /> house. He stated they also get plowed into their driveway in the rvinfiers. <br /> Sansevere asked what the Plan.ning Corrunission found as the hardship. Mabusth stated '' <br /> � they did not want the Johnson's to have to back out onto�the street,the size of the lot w�.s <br /> subst�ndard in a 1-acre zone, and that the improvements would be in line witli the � <br /> neighbor's homes. Bottenberg stated tliat the Johnson's h�d reduced their hardcover Uy j <br /> 220 s.f., and that the Ilardship was due to lot size and topography. Mr. Jolulson stated that , <br /> they liad very little hardcover in tlie 0—75' zone. Nygard suggested placing a covenaiit on <br /> the property to limit the size of the house. Mr. Joluison stated that lie did not want to do a � <br /> tear dorvn, but would enclose an eYisting screened porch and the only demolition would be <br /> to 8' of the garage. He also stated that fihey would remove a paved area on the side of the <br /> house and the front sidewalk. <br /> Mayor Petersoil stated she had a problem with the applicant increasing the amount of <br /> structural coverage on the property. Moorse and Gaffron stated they had not seen a true . <br /> liardship in the application. <br /> Flint rnoved, �nd White seconded,to adopt a resolution gr�nting variances to <br /> 1VluniciPal Zoning Cocle Section 10.03, Subdivision 1�(C) to allo�v 2,195 s.f. (21.6%) <br /> structural�Iot cover�ge where 1,792 s.f. (17.7%) exists and 1,519 s.f. (15°/a) is �llotived, <br /> : Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.5G, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to altow 3,548 <br /> s.f. (50�%) h�rdcover in the 75—250' l�keshore setback where 4,302.9 s.f. (60.7%) <br /> exists and 1,772.5 s.f. (25%) is �Ilotiyed,Section 10.2�t,Subdivision 5(B) to �llorv side <br /> yzrd setb�cks of 6.6' for 1n entrytiv�iy addition where 10' is required, 5' for� ga�rage <br /> � �ddition�vhere �0' is required, and a relr y�rd setback of 8.8' �nd 14.6' for a g�rage <br /> addition tivhere 35' is required nnd Section I0.22, Subdivision 1(B) �nd Section 10.56, <br /> Subdivision 1G(C)(6) to allorv encro�chment of 20' �nd 32' into the average 1lkeshore <br /> 11 <br />