My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2630
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
R
>
Rest Point Road
>
1380 Rest Point Road - 07-117-23-33-0007
>
Land Use
>
2630
>
2630
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:36:30 PM
Creation date
1/27/2017 10:06:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1380
Street Name
Rest Point
Street Type
Road
Address
1380 Rest Point Rd
Document Type
Land Use
PIN
0711723330007
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
�� <br /> � . <br /> Request for Council Action continued <br /> Page 2 <br /> October 19,2000 <br /> #2630 Gre��and Stephanie Larsen <br /> The motion as stated in the draft minutes was to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone at a level of <br /> 4,506 s.£ (49.8%). The motion verbatim by Commissioner Lindquist was as follows: "I'd like to <br /> - make a n:otio�t to approve Application #2630 for Gregg and Stepltanie Larsen, 1380 Rest Point Road, <br /> variance to build a patio no bigger tltan was previously - we're approving a variance, basically a <br /> liardcover variance, not to exceed 4,506 square feet in tJ:e 75-250; and to approve tlre variance in tlte 0- <br /> 75'irp to 882 square feet. This does inclr�de removal of the�Yisting l,727square feet of landscape fabric <br /> in t/re 7�-250'and also a�ry landscape fabric in t/:e 0-75:" The motion was then modified to add the <br /> six recommendations from the City Engineer's letter, and that a landscape plan be submitted for <br /> screening of the walls. The motion was approved on a vote of 5-0. <br /> During the Planning Commission discussion,and after the 4,506 s.f. figure had been arrived at, the <br /> applicant asked whether he could trade existing driveway to get a patio larger than 135 s.£ There <br /> was no clear answer to this during the discussion nor in the motion. <br /> ANALYSIS OF REQUEST <br /> Staff suQgests it would be inconsistent to allow such a driveway-for-deck tradeoff when hardcover <br /> is so excessive on a site. If the drive�vay hardcover is non-essential, then it should be removed and <br /> not credited toward some other form of excessive hardcover. No specific plan for driveway <br /> reductions has been submitted by the applicant. <br /> Council should also consider the history of past variances on this property,which unfortunately was <br /> not presented by staff during the Planning Commission review process. This site received a variance <br /> in 1987 to allow a room and attached garage addition. Hardcover allo�ved by that variance (see <br /> Resolution No. 2217, E�chibit C) in the 7�-250' zone was 2833 s.f. for the house/garage/porch, 810 <br /> s.f for driveway,and 100 s.f. for landscape areas,for a total of 3,743 s.f. The existing house-garage- <br /> porch in 2000 has not changed significantly except for removal of the 135 s.f. deck,but the existing <br /> drive�vay has grown from 810 s.f. to 1,299 s.f. without any City approvals. <br /> ISSUES FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER <br /> l. Should the applicants' 7�-2�0' hardcover allowance (absent any contemplated driveway <br /> removals) be 4,506 s.f. based on the incorrect number arrived at during the Plannin� <br /> Commission meeting, or the corrected number of 4,219 s.£? <br /> Staff Recommendation: -�,219 s.f. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.