My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-08-1995 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
1990-1999
>
1995
>
05-08-1995 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 9:26:18 AM
Creation date
4/25/2019 9:26:17 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
f MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MAY 8, 1995 <br />( *#6) #1921 ivLXRY ULRICH, 1000 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - PRELIMINARY <br />• SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3556 <br />Hurr moved, Jabbour seconded, to approve Resolution #3556 for a preliminary <br />subdivision for Mary Ulrich of 1000 Loma Linda Avenue. Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />( #7) #2009 TOM AND MAUREEN PALM, 1685 CONCORDIA STREET - <br />VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3557 <br />Mr. & Mrs. Palm were present. <br />Mabusth reviewed the application. The property is located on the Lakeshore side of <br />Concordia. An application was previously approved in 12/94 for a second level over the <br />existing 20'x54' single story structure requiring approval of an average lakeshore setback, <br />hardcover, and lakeshore setback variances. <br />After reviewing plans with builders, the Palm's were advised to rebuild the structure. The <br />Palm's plan is to rebuild a new two -level structure 50' from the lakeshore with a deck 40' <br />from the lakeshore. The deck would extend 10' in front of the average lakeshore setback <br />line. The application would result in hardcover reductions. At present, two - thirds of the <br />structure is within the 0 -75' setback. The new 30'x46' structure would result in half being <br />located in the lakeshore protected area, with the side setback being met but not the <br />• lakeshore setback. The residence would not encroach the average lakeshore setback line <br />but the deck would extend into that line by 10'. <br />The hardship statement compares the hardships with those noted in the previous <br />application. It was noted that the drainage of the property actually slopes away from the <br />lake, which aided in the Planning Commission's approval by a vote of 5 for, 2 against. <br />The two members who voted nay were not in favor of encroachment of new construction <br />within the lakeshore protected area. The applicant had noted that if the lakeshore setback <br />was met, the residence would face the rear of existing homes. Mabusth noted that the <br />new owner of the residence to the left of this property had no plans to rebuild. <br />Hurr opined that she saw no hardship for the deck encroaching into the average lakeshore <br />setback noting that the applicant would still be granted a variance with the home located <br />at the 50' line. <br />The applicant reviewed the background of the application and his attempt to meet the <br />important issues desired by the City. Palm said that the proposed deck would be at <br />ground level with no rail, and the deck is now located at 29' from the lake. Palm said the <br />deck plans were reviewed with Ceil Strauss of the DNR, who saw no problems with it's <br />location. <br />is <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.