08-11-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 28,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. *13. #03-2915 NORTHERN SUNROOMS, INC. ON BEHALF OF SCOTT UDELL 2166 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 5015 Murphy moved, Sanscvere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5015, a Resolution granting approvai of the 8* variances from the average lakeshore setback and the 2* variance for the eave encroachment for the property iocated at 2166 Shadywood Road., VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - VARIANCE GafTron explained that the applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. The applicant has proposed to remove 1 s.f. of existing 0-75’ hardcover for each 2 s.f. of proposed new hardcover in the 75-250’, i.e. a 1:2 removal ratio which would result in a 300 s.f. net increase in hardcover on the site. GafTron indicated that the Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21 and recommended approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75’ zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/s story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75’ zone is the hardship. In addition, the Planning Commission further recommended that a hardcover variance be approved for the porch and garage additions only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. The Planning Commission also recommended that the shed in the 0-75’ setback zone be removed as part of the removals and that all landscape plastic/fabric be removed. Gaffron acknowledged the memo of support from the applicant's neighbors. Murphy asked how the 600 s.f. would be removed from the site. Gaffron indicated that, likely, the shed of 100’ would be removed from the 0-75’. He noted that removals from the 75-250' were difficult to come up with, since much of the home is located in the 0-75’ zone and because the driveway accesses a private driveway/roadway with limited parking. He noted that the applicant would probably lose much of his patio. Smith reminded the Couneil to consider the uniqueness of his lot, which it is in character and reminiscent to the 1950's style of the lake. He noted that it is more than 300' to the nearest public right of way for additional parking; therefore, he found it difficult to remove significant portions of his driveway. Smith pointed out that if his home were on a conforming I acre parcel, it would be allowed 7,800 s.f of hardcover, and if it were a tear down it would be easier to reduce hardcover. He maintained that his home was not a tear down and, in fact, unique in that it was not another tall structure. He argued that the City, PAGE 11 of 18