07-12-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 21,1999 \0 •• (#2496 PATRICK AND JEANNE O’FLANAGAN, CONTINUED) small lot size. StwW^ commented that that Is a bigger issue than v/hat Is before the Pj^wffing Commission tonight. Hawn stated that mb«R)^nlng Commission Is routinely askj and that this issue shomd’v^aps be addressed. approve variances for small lots Smith noted that the total structuraTo«x£'’39®J?'<^®f allowable limits and that the Applicant is not able to place the garage in a diffe?bnLKS^tlon. Stoddard moved, Lindquist sec^»ff^d, to recotrlTnaj^d approval of Appllcat'on #2496, to allow for the location of ap^istlng detached gara^e^d two decks on the property located at 3895 North Shof^rive, and to permit a crowdutg^^rinclpal structure vrriance residence and the ard variance to allow a six foot wi^d^eck to be ucnstructed between the exi proposed detach^d^arage where ten feet is required, to permit a si to allow the apcf^sory structure (detached garage) to be located six feef^rt^re ten feet is required^from the side lot line, to permit a rear yard variance to allow consm^tion of the prapt$sed 8 by 18 foot deck on the south side of the residence 24 feet from the rear loMide where 30 feet Is required, subject to inspection by the City Building Inspector of (e footings or slab on grade for the garage. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS . (#2) #2492 RICK AND GAIL LUZAICH, 2490 OLD BEACH ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Rick Luzalch, Applicant, was present, along with Phil Reznick, Attomey-at-Law, and Gary Mueller, Landscape Architect. Gaffron stated this application was reviewed at the May 17th Planning Commission wherein tha Planning Commission advised the Applicant that the proposed restoration plan was not appropriate and the Applicant was directed to submit a revised plan after consultation with Staff and the City's consulting forester. Gaffron stated that the Applicant submitted a revised plan prior to meeting with the City ’s consulting forester, which incorporates a single retaining wall at the base of the slope along with replacement of a small number of trees along the sides of the property. The Applicant ’s landscape architect and the City ’s consulting forester discussed the proposal, and concluded that their individual strategies for restoration of this property are quite dif^^rent. Gaffron noted that it is the City ’s goal to have the^ lakeshore restored to a wooded, natural appearance as quickly as possible, and while the Applicant ’s plan is a good landscape plan, it is not a restoration plan. Gaffron reviewed the City ’s consulting forester's comments and recommendations regarding the restoration of this property, noUng that a total of 17 trees with a stump diameter 12 inches or greater were removed from the lake side of the residence, with the value of the removed trees being estimated at $48,000. It would generally be unreasonal . to expect restoration costs to exceed this amount. Bedker is recommending that 29 trees of two Inch caliper on a 25 Inch average spacing would be needed to eventually replace the 14,450 square feet of lost canopy, with larger 4.0 to 4.5 Inch caliper trees being placed at the top of the slope to soften and obscure the roofline of the Page 3