My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-27-2015 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2015
>
07-27-2015 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2015 10:59:00 AM
Creation date
10/1/2015 10:51:16 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
469
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Date Application Received: 07/18/14 <br />Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/05/14 <br />120‐Day Review Period Expires: 07/31/15 <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br />Date: 21 July 2015 <br />Item No. 3 <br />Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: <br />Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML <br />Title: Planner <br />Item Description: <br /> #14‐3678, Architectural Landscape Design o/b/o Bret & Jennifer Riemenschneider <br /> 835 Forest Arms Ln – Variance – Resolution <br /> <br />Zoning District: LR‐1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre/140’ <br />Lot Area: 45,933 square feet (1.05 acres) <br />Lot Width: 140 feet <br /> <br />Background: <br />In July of 2014, the applicant applied for a number of variances that would permit improvements lakeward of the <br />average lakeshore setback line. These improvements and encroachments included: <br /> 16’ x 14’ elevated deck at the southeast corner of the home, extending 21 feet. <br /> Semi enclosed screen porch below the deck, extending 21 feet into the average lakeshore setback. <br /> 2’ x 9’ entry pergola. <br /> <br />Also proposed but not requiring variances were a patio; two new 6’ x 9’ stoops (including stairs), a grilling station, <br />water feature and sitting walls which will extend as much as 22 feet toward the lake from the home and up to 33 feet <br />into the average lakeshore setback. The patios, sitting walls and other features are less than 42” above grade <br />therefore are not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. <br /> <br />Current Request/Revised Plans: <br />Prior to the public hearing in August 2014 the applicant expressed to Staff the owners’ desire to enlarge the <br />deck/porch structure by an additional 5‐feet closer to the lake. This plan would increase only the deck/screen porch <br />size to 16’ x 19’ and increase the encroachment toward the lake from 21 feet to 26 feet. The Planning Commission <br />discussed the original request as well as the 5‐foot increase. The application was initially placed for review on the <br />Council’s September 8, 2014 agenda yet was tabled at the applicant’s request prior to the meeting. At that time the <br />property owner wanted to explore changes to the plan. The property owners requested an extension until July 31, <br />2015 to further explore their options. <br /> <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />The Planning Commission held the public hearing and discussed the original request as well as the proposed 5‐foot <br />increase to the structure depth. The adjacent property owners provided supportive statements regarding the <br />original variance; there was no one from the public present at the meeting. On August 18, the Planning <br />Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the average setback variance including the 5‐foot expansion <br />toward the lake subject to the applicant providing revised plans and revised support statements from the adjacent <br />neighbors. <br /> <br />The applicant continues to request an average lakeshore setback variance to allow the entry pergola and a ±19.5’ x <br />16.5’ one‐level roofed screen porch extending approximately 26 feet into the average lakeshore setback the <br />previously proposed upper deck has been removed from the plan. The patio and pergola components of the plan <br />remain to be very similar to the previous plan. Based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation Staff does not <br />find the changes significant to trigger another Planning Commission review. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.