Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 17, 1995 <br />( #5 - #2034 Mary & Gene Zulk - Continued) <br />Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2034 for a covered deck <br />addition to the street side with removal of the stone patio on the northeast, with the <br />disclaimer of allowing no additional structural improvements on the property in the future <br />without the removal of existing structure. Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />( #6) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUTANIS,1098 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - <br />VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:01 -8:37 P.M. <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br />Mr. Goutanis was present. <br />Mabusth reported that the original residence was built in 1934. The garage encroaches 6" <br />into the public right -of -way, which is a lakeshore access used year around with a <br />swimming dock. Structural failings have been found within the existing foundation. The <br />applicant proposes 3x8' rounding off of the structure at the southeast and northeast <br />corners. The applicant has proposed three options by which to proceed and is asking for a <br />recommendation from the Planning Commission as to which option they would approve. <br />Case #1 would involve partial foundation repairs at the lakeside with an renovation of the <br />first floor only. The condition of the remaining foundation would not enable any <br />expansion of the second floor. <br />Case #2 involves a complete replacement of the foundation. Both cases 1 and 2 would <br />require the house to be raised. In this case, improvements would also be made to the <br />second floor level, all within the same footprint. There would be a slight encroachment of <br />the lakeshore yard by the steps and stoop of 4'. The detached garage would stay the same <br />at 24x22', as in case #1, with side relocation of the garage door. The 6" encroachment <br />would remain. Hardcover statistics reflect the increase in hardcover. A side setback <br />variance is needed in this case. <br />Case #3 would relocate the home further away from the lake with the same footprint. It <br />would improve the left side setback to 10', where house is 6 -112' from lot line. The garage <br />would be the same but would now be attached and still encroach 6 ". The upper level <br />improvements would now include a deck to the lakeside. This would not involve any <br />encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line as it would not extend beyond the <br />given footprint located further away from lake. <br />Lindquist asked if the Commission could approve an application that encroaches on the <br />ispublic right -of -way. Mabusth replied that she would hope this would not occur. <br />6 <br />