07-08-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#4 - #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht - Continued) GafFron reported that the after-the-fact request for hardcover variance was due to the construction of a 207 s.f deck to the lakeside of the residence Gaffron said the propeity was originally in ownership with an adjacent lot. which was subsequentiv sold Each lot now has a house with amenities A resolution in 1984 allowed for 277s's f of hardcover or 25% of the 75-250' zone. A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence ’ subject to the use of grass pavers for the driveway resulting in a hardcover proposal of 19% It was found in 1991 that the driveway had been paved with asphalt and had constructed decks without approval resulting in 5080 s.f of hardcover. The 19' driveway with backup apron was approved in 1991 to eliminate the need to b ck up onto Co Rd 19. Work in progress was recently stopped when it was found that another deck was being constructed Also seen was a hot tub, which is to be placed on the deck This deck, along with different interpretations of calculations, result in 5352 s.f. ofliaidcover. 270 s.f. more than what was approved in 1991. Including the area outside of the 75', there is a net increase in hardcover of 165 s f Landscaping proposal by Otten Bros, of landscape patio blocks result in a net increase of 54 s f of hardcover. The proposal is to reduce the driveway to a narrower width and leave the backup apron, resulting in a net reduction of 35 s.f in the 75-250' zone. The lakeshore stairway, shown on the landscape plan, was rebuilt since 1991. This additional hardcover was addressed in 1991, and the owner was informed that a permit would be required The City also made an effort at that time to ensure that a new owmer w'ould be aware of these restrictions The stairway is 3'xl9' long with a 6'xl3' landing, where 4'x4' is allowed Gaffron said the square footage of the structure is not much more than code would allow, but since il is after-llie-fact, it is necessary to review the stnjcture. Gaffron noted that the present owner has owned the property since 1991. The applicant, Albrecht, disputed the calculations of the hardcover. It was noted that the hardcover calculation in 1996 included the entire properly, wliile only the 75'-250' zone w'as included in the calculation in 1991. Gaffron explained it was a matter of differing interpretations. Smith said the existing driveway was necessary for safety reasons. No further encroachments or hardcover were said to be allowed in the future by the Planning Commission in 1991. Smith said this was an opportunity to honor what a past Planning Commission had recommended. Lindquist commented that this application was a good example of why covenants are necessary’ for properties. Hawn agreed with Lindquist and Smith that no additional hardcover should be allowed. They, along with Peterson, agreed that the backup apron was necessary foi safely. !