09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, Aafatt 16, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.fn. (lKM-3010 Tkcodore Capra, confiaued) Capra stated in order to have an underground garage area he ^\ould need to construct a retaining wall, which would actually raise the amount of hardcover. Capra indicated he would like to go before the Cit>'Council Gundlach recomnKnded the Planning Commission table the conditioiul use permit in the event the applicant w ishes to do the grading w iihm 75' feet of the lake in the future. Gundlach stated that application can be withdrawn if the applicant does not decide to proceed forward Leslie moved, Kempf seconded, lo recomne«d denial of Ike kardcov er variance and to table Ike conditional use permit lo allow land alterationt wiikin the 0-75' tone for the propertv locatcd at 3534 Ivy Place. \ OTE: Ay cs 6. Nays 0. *5. *04-3037 /ATA t Ol NTRV t LI B, 430 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - variance . (6:29 - 6:44 p.m.) Bob Dnscoll appeared on behalf of the Way-zata Country Club. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting to amend their conditional um : permit to include a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the existing maintenance building located just north of the Luce Line Trail. The tequest also includes a vanance to allow a single building to be larger than 3000 sipiare leet The country club is located w ithin the RR-IB one-family rural residential district and that all accessory’ structures shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. The existing maintenance building is located 45 feet from the Luce Line where 50 feet is normally required Gundlach noted the existing accessory strucnire was approved through the conditional u>e process. With a 55-foot setback being sho.v-n on the plans. However, the building was not constructed in the location depicted on the plans and is thus causing the need for a vanance for the addition. The applicant has proposed to construct an 18' by 60' addition to the eastern side of the existing maintenance building, which would have a setback of 41 feet from the Luce Line Trail boundary. Gundlach stated Staff finds no liardship exists inherent to the land to support approval of the Luce Line setback vanance. The addition could be shifted north to meet the setback or the addition could be reduced in si/e. Gundlach stated because the structure is nonconforming, the City is under no obligation to permit any expansion at all. Gundlach indicated the Luce Line Trail property is owned and operated by the DNR, who has no formal setback requirements. ITie DNR was notified of this request and no comments have been received to date. Staff IS recommending denial of the Luce Lme setback vanance to allow an accessory building to be eonstructed within 50 feet of the Luce Line boundary. Staff does recommend approval of the PAGE 6