03-16-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 17, 1998 (U9 - #2317 Khasrow Daivari - Continued)% Bressler distributed pictures of the property. He reported that the application is for an after-the-fact variance for structural coverage and average lakeshore setback tor a screened porch over an existing deck. Bressler indicated the porch may impact the views for the property to the south as this property is significantly higher in elevation. The porch was constructed '.*'ithout a building permit. If approved, the building inspector said the porch would have to be retrofitted to meet code by improving the structural soundness, adding required frost footings, and include a solid enclosed roof Bressler noted the applicant takes exception to this requirement. Bressler said Staff recommends denial of the variances as the porch would encroach 6' ahead of the average lakeshore setback and increase structural coverage to 16.4% where 15% is allowed. Daivari said the home is a summer home only. He constructed the porch due to problems incurred with mosquitoes. He did not want to enclose the roof, except with screening, to allow the sky to be viewed. Daivari said the porch would be painted and the screen is removable. In response to Lindquist's comment that the porch does not meet building code, Daivari said he did not design the porch as a building. Bressler noted that the applicant woidd be allowed to put a tent up on the property. Berg informed Daivari that once framing is done, it becomes a structure. Smith noted that Daivari requested approval of the porch from’council last summer and was denied. She indicated denial would show consistency amongst the Counci', Planning Commission, and Staff. Bill Bockman, a neighbor of Daivari’s, supported the porch. Smith informed him of the purpose of the code regarding safety. McMillan added that if the property is sold, further problems could occur with additions to the porch. Daivari asked if he removed the porch and submitted an application, if a variance would be approved. Bressler indicated that it would require average lakeshore setback and structural coverage variances, which necessitate the need for showing hardship. He did not feel the situation was unique to this property. Lindquist informed Daivari that he did not believe the application would be approved. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to deny Application #2j 17. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Smith asked if there was room between the residence and average lakeshore setback for a porch. Bressler said there was about a 5-6' space to work within. Bockman questioned why other average lakeshore setback variances were approved in the neighborhood. Smith suggested he contact Staff to discuss the matter.