02-13-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Date Application Received: 8-16-05 �OUNCIL MEETING � Date Application Considered as Complete: 9-9-05 60-Day Review Period Expires: ll-8-OS extended to 1-7-06 extended to 3-8-06 FEB 13 2006 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �ITY OF ORONO Date: February 8, 2006 Item No.: � -- Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron ° Zoning Title: Planning Director �� Item Description: OS-3147, Steven& Jaiuia Sundby, 3587 North Shore Drive - Lake Setback, Hardcover& Structl.iral Coverage Variances Zoning District: LR— 1 C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (`/z acre min.) Lot Area: 0.14 acre (6,312 s.f.) Lot Width: 108' @ shoreline; 62' @ 75' setback List of Exhibits A - Planning Commission Action Notice 1-31-06 B - DRAFT Planning Cominission Minutes of 1-17-06 C - Additional Supportive Inforination Provided by Applicant 1-17-06 D - Plamiing Commission Memo and E�ibits of 1-10-06 Application Summary-Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a 5'x 8' covered entry, some of which will be under the existing overhang: 1. Lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 49' from the 929.4' OHWL when 75' is normally required and 21' currently eaists. 2. Haz•dcover variance to permit 65%hardcover within the 0-75' zone where 0%is normally allowed and 65% currently exists (hardcover within the 75'-250' zone is conforming). 3. Structural coverage variance to permit 28%where 1500 s.f. (or 24%)is normally allowed and 27% currently exists. Planning Commission Recommendation On January 17,Planning Conunission on a vote of 3-2,recoininended approval of setback,hardcover and lot coverage variances as proposed. The minority opinion was that the solution to the problem was gutters,not an overhang; and that the City needs to either allow entryway overhangs(as a non- encroaclunent,perhaps)or quit grantinb variances to allow them after a house is built without them. Discussion Council may wish to discuss under what circumstances covered entries should be permitted, as the hardship almost always is related to the location and design of the existing home. In this specific case,while the visual impacts of the proposed 40 s.f.entry are relatively mirumal,it would add to the structural coverage that already exceeds the limits for this size lot. It would not increase the hardcover, as it would be completely over existing sidewalk and driveway.