Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25» 1997 <br />(Public Comments - Continued) <br />Jabbour told Hart that a survey would be required and hardcover calculations made for <br />his property for the changes as proposed. He said the Council would be happy to rc'/iew <br />his application for variance. <br />Goetten apologized to Hart for his having recdved incorrect information from City Staff. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />(#4) #223® CHIC DWIGHT AND FRED GUTTORMSON, 1220 TONKAWA <br />ROAD • VARIANCES <br />The applicants were present. <br />Gafifron reported that the application is in two parts; one b^ng an after-the-fact lakeshore <br />setback variance and 0-75' hardcover variance for an enclosed room below the existing <br />deck. The second part includes a 75-250’ hardcover variance for a 32'x30' garage. <br />Ga£fron explained the location of the property. <br />The deck enclosure was approved two years ago subject to removal of the 8* gravel <br />driveway to the lake and removal of the lakeshore deck. These removals would allow the <br />applicant to enclose below the deck and repair the deck as well as grading for a w^out <br />doorway. The resolution was not rigned and the work was done without the requured <br />permits and removals. The work in progress was stopped by the building in^tector. <br />This after-the-fact renewal application also now includes a new garage, which would <br />the setbacks, and hardcover removal in both the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas and <br />removal of two sheds. The Planning Commission reviewed the q>plicarion and <br />unanimously recommended approval of the deck enclosure with hardcover removals as <br />noted. The approval is subject to brining the enclosure into conformance and removal <br />of sheds. 8' driveway and the lakeshore deck. <br />The Planning Commission detemuned that the removals suggested by the applicant were <br />insufficient to off-set the increase of structural hardcover for the new garage. They <br />requested the loop driveway located in the 0-75' setback be removed. The applicant did <br />not agree to this removal, and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended <br />denial of this portion of the application request. <br />Guttormson said he installed pop-in, pop-out, type windows without any frost footings <br />under the deck. He also did not do the dig^g as he had requested or enlarge the deck. <br />He feh he then was not required to make the removals. Jabbour verified that Guttormson <br />screened in what was existing below the deck. Guttormson said Bruce Vang inform^ <br />him the work must be done to code. It was suggested to him at that lime that he split his <br />^[iplication requests into separate parts.