09-13-1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 21,1999 K (#2496 PATRICK AND JEANNE O'FLANAGAN. CONTINUED) small lot size. Stoddard commented that that is a bigger Issue than what is before the Planning Commission tonight. Hawn stated that the Planning Commission is routinely asked to approve variances for small lots and that this issue should perhaps be addressed. Smith noted that the total structural coverage is under the allowable limits and that the Applicant is not able to place the garage in a different location. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2496, to allow for the location of an existing detached garage and two decks on the property located at 3895 North Shore Drive, and to permit a crowding principal structure variance to allow a six foot wide deck to be constructed between the existing residence and the proposed detached garage where ten feet is required, to permit a side yard variance to allow the accessory structure (detached garage) to be located six feet where ten feet is required from the side lot line, to permit a rear yard variance to allow construction of the proposed 8 by 18 foot deck on the south side of the residence 24 feet from the rear lot line where 30 feet is required, subject to inspection by the City Building Inspector of the 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 Luzaich, 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 the 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 different. Gaffron noted that it is the City’s goal to have the^ lakeshore restored to a \,ooded. 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, noting 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 unreasonable to expect restoration costs to exceed this amcunt, 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