Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />mNUTES FOR APRIL 10,2000 <br />*4. ^^^543 Ted Edin, 3025 Casco Point Road —Variance —Rfistffution No. 4436 — <br />Continued <br />iution No. 4436 granting variancesFlint moved, and Petersj)n seconded, to adopt <br />to <br />municipal zoning code sectio^l0.03, subdivision 14 (C); section 10.22, subdivisions 1 <br />(B) and 2; and section 10.56, subd|vi^ns 16 (C) (6) and 16 (L) (2). <br />Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />*5. #2551 ThomasR^ndgaard, 2765 Shadywdod^Road—Conditional Use Permit- <br />Resolution No. 4437 <br />iti^Flint mdved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolutions^. 4437 granting a <br />copditional use permit per municipal zoning code section 10.55, sifb^vision 9 (B). <br /><^te: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />6. #2564 William Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place—^Variance <br />The applicant was present. <br />Gaffron stated that the applicant wanted to add a two-story entryway addition and a <br />second floor expansion to the existing residence. The first-story walls and foundation <br />would remain. The issues facing the application include the side setback. The minimum <br />requirement for side yard setback is 10 feet. There is currently a 2.9-3.4 foot setback on <br />the west side of the house. The addition would continue the existing substandard side <br />setback. Lakeshore hardcover within 75-250 feet of the shoreline should be no greater <br />than 25%. Currently the hardcover is at 55.4%. The proposed changes to the house <br />would reduce hardcover in that zone to 48.9%. Also, the lot coverage allowed is 15%. <br />The current house is at 16.8%, and the proposed changes would increase lot coverage to <br />18.7%. The deck on the lake side of the house has a railing that extends over 6 feet above <br />the grade, hence the entire deck is counted as lot coverage. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed the application and recommends denial of the <br />application primarily because of the lot coverage issue. Since the Planning Commission <br />meeting, the applicant has presentc:i st-.^ral options for changing the deck so that it <br />would not be considered structure c->.'erage. One potential solution requires a <br />conditional use permit to build a reiauiing wall within a foot or so of the side lot line to <br />create a terrace that would reduce the drop from the deck to 30 inches or less. <br />Kelley stated he would prefer to table the application so it can go back to the Planning <br />Commission or move on it as it stands. Dampier stated he was willing to return to the <br />Planning Commission. <br />— - ------------------------------------------------- ■ . - _