09-16-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Bottcnberg explained that the applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not yet built the residence and wishes to malcc two changes to the approved plan. Bottenberg reported that the changes to the plan include shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The approved variances had not expired and the additional variances would include a side .»rd setback to permit the addition to be 5’ and 7.9’ from the west side property line. Additional variances for hardcover and structure within 75’ of the lakeshore were also necessary. The proposed residence was originally approved to be 53 ’ from the lakeshore, the addition of the “prow” extends the house 4.5’ towards the lake which now locates the residence 48.5 ’ from the lakeshore. Bottenberg reminded the Commission that the DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50 ’ for a General Development Lake property. Although the residence would still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, the average lakeshore setback is not an issue. Smith asked what the rationale for the “prow” was. Ms. Welch stated that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. Mabusth reminded the Commission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the applicant of back in February. Gaffron noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal. Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the lake, however, this measurement did not reflect the caves, which would extend even further into the setback, as would any steps. Rahn asked if the glass “prow” was all windows and no doors. Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. PAGE 13 of 28