Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 <br />•( #6 - #2141 Roberta Roth - Continued) <br />Smith asked if the shed was to be removed. The applicant said it would be. When asked <br />where the items in the shed would go, the applicant said there was 9' of storage on one <br />side of the proposed garage and 5' on the front. The applicant said one car would be <br />sitting outside. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the side street setback variance for the <br />16'x20' garage and removal of the shed. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />( #7) #2142 ANGELA WOODHOUSE, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - <br />VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:15 -8:28 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present along with Scott Gikling. <br />Mabusth reported that the property is located on North Shore Drive, and the majority of <br />the residence is within the 0 -75' setback. The proposed improvement requires Lakeshore <br />• setback, average lakeshore, and hardcover variances. The improvements include a two <br />story addition at 6'x23' to the west side of the 2 story home, a new side entry with stoop, a <br />realigned stairway, and a bay addition at lakeshore. The upper level would allow an <br />additional bedroom. A 17.5 sT bay currently exists and a 52 sT bay addition is proposed. <br />Elevations were shown. Both structures encroach the average lakeshore with the west <br />addition 2 P in front of the average lakeshore setback and 42' from the lakeshore. The bay <br />is located 23' in front of the average lakeshore setback and 39-1/2' from the lakeshore. <br />The existing structure is 2 P from the shoreline. The improvements would increase the <br />hardcover in the 0 -75' setback by 193.8 s.f. or 0.90 %. <br />Peterson commented that the variance is a result of the entire home being located in the 0- <br />75' setback. <br />Mabusth said the increases are a result of the new entry and stoop and would be <br />considered minor if the home was not in the 0 -75' setback. She added that the house was <br />centrally located on the 280' wide lot, and there was no visual impact on the lake view of <br />the adjacent residences. <br />Lindquist asked if the 193 s. f. was all in the 0 -75' setback. Mabusth said it was and <br />recommended removal of a boat house with deck. Lindquist said any hardcover increase <br />would require a decrease in the 0 -75' setback. <br />9 <br />