03-17-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. Fcbniary 19.2{KJ3 6 30 o'clock p.m. (W03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY. Conlinued) reasonable, and that existing road and parking conditions all support the hardcover v ariance, then staff would suggest three conditions be applied to any approval granted; 1. Applicant provide shrubbery between the parking area and lake to screen vehicles. 2. The parking area be limited to a depth of 25' measured from the edge of the traveled paved road. thus, yielding a 25-30' lake setback, 3. The shed next to the lake must be removed by a date certain to be established between Council and applicant, presumably as soon as the snow is gone With regard to the lakeside deck in the west 0-75' /one Gafl'ron pointed out that this 4.5'X12' deck was constructed during remodeling without zoning or building permit approval, constituting a 0-75* structure encroachment, an average setback encroachment, and excessive hardcover. Ihe deck is merely 36* from the .shoreline. .Arguably. Gafl'ron stated that the deck was not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of pnor zoning applications. Although staff could confirm that a 160 s.f. deck existed in the past. Gaffron indicated that it was completely removed sometime prior to or during the remodeling process, and construction of the new deck had never b<^ addressed. Since 42 s.f. of the deck is not over approved boulder walls and its additional hardcover yields a new proposed total of 1581.6 s f or 27‘*o hardcover, a Iiardship statement should be requested by the Commission to vvarrant its existence Gaffron pointed out tb.«t the deck currently serves a sliding glass door liKalcd 7-8* aK*vc grade, and if not approved, the applicant would be required to permanently block the door with a railing or other method for safety reasons. He added that the deck is at a location where it would have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by the neighbor. With regard to the proposed deck between the garage and house in the 75-250' zone. Gaffron stated that the applicants are proposing a 266 5 s.f. dt.k south of the house and extending toward the garage, adj.icent to the tunnel and 6* fa>m the propeny line at its closest point Gaffron asked what the intent of this deck was meant to be. and stated that he saw no hardship to support this aspect of the application Once again. Gaffron slated that stall' had found no hardship to support a hardcover vaiiu.^.ce for Ihe dc\k on the south side of Ihe house, and would recommend denial of that request. Funhemiore. although Ihe deck on the west side of the house would have minimal impact on lake views, staff believes there is no apparent hardship supporting the existence of the deck. Staff recommends denial of this request, and rcniov al of the deck vv ithin 60 days, in addition to whatever measures are required by Ihe Building Code to make the d».)or safe. Gafl'ron pointed out that staff would support the hardcover variance for the gravel parking area, based on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood, and would recommend approv al .subject to the conditions noted earlier. PAGE 10 of 26