06-21-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 17,1999 #2493 KATHERINE TAYLOR HOMES. CONTINUED Hugh commented that she has reduced the size of the driveway. Hugh expressed frustration that the hardcover limit promotes outside storage of vehicles and other items. Lindquist stated that unfortunately hardcover needs to be limited somehow. Lindquist commented that a hardship needs to be imposed by the land, noting that a steep slope does exist. Hugh inquired whether she would be permitted to add 158 square feet of hardcover. Stoddard stated she would be allowed to add 158 square feet In structural coverage. Hugh inquired whether wood chips were okay. Hawn stated that wood chips are fine but that rock and plastic underiayment are considered hardcover. There were no public comments. Lindquist stated he would be In favor of the deck but not the garage. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the portion of Application #2493, 692 Tonkawa Road, to permit the construction of a deck above the attached garage over the existing hardcover, with an attached spiral staircase, and to grant a variance to the hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of the portion of Application #2493, 692 Tonkawa Road, to permit the construction of a two stall detached garage 30 feet from the right-of-way and 10 feet from the side lot line due to the structural coverage being in excess of 15 percent. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2494 DAN ANDERSEN, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY - VARIANCES. 8:48 p.m. - 8:58 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Dan Andersen was present. Lee Statman was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance for an undeveloped lot within the recently approved Little Orchard Addition. When the subdivision was approved, a stable remained on the lot located near the front yard setback line and encroaching into the required 30 foot side yard setback. It was the subdivider’s intent that the building be removed; however, the Applicant has requested the stable be moved to a conforming location on the lot. The building would be relocated to the rear of the lot meeting all required yard setbacks. Weinberger stated a restrictive covenant woutd need to be placed over the lot for an oversized accessory building because it exceeds 1,000 square feet. The Applicant is also requesting that the City allow the west property line to be identified as a side Page 13