Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 8,1996 <br />(#6 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) <br />Gaffron said the Planning Commission reviewed the 199 1 findings for an after-the-fact <br />driveway installed by a previous owner The 1991 Commission found the entire driveway <br />to be necessary to maintain a safe level of access and would not allow any trade oft' of <br />driveway. A condition of that approval was that there would be no further encroachment <br />of structure in the lakeshore yard to include any deck. Gaft'ron said by code the definition <br />of "lakcshore yard" means the 0-75 ’ zone. No clarification was included in the resolution. <br />Gafffon reported that the current owner also replaced an existing stairway to the lake <br />with a non-conforming 6'xl3' platform where only 4’ width is allowed. The Planning <br />Commission questioned whether adequate hardship was shown and recommended the <br />stairway system be brought into conformity <br />Kelley asked if a building permit was taken out for the deck. Gaffron replied to the <br />negative. Kelley noted it was curious that the deck conforms to the 75' setback line. <br />Attorney Mitchell said the applicant was of the opinion that he could replace the <br />lakeshore stairway board by board and is willing to reduce it to 4' if requested. Mitchell <br />said the numbers regarding the hardcover were correct. He noted the hard^ip pertained <br />to the slanting lakeshore in relation to the squared off homes in the area Mitchell noted <br />that the older portion of the house was located in the 0-75' zone, while the newer <br />portions were built behind that line Mitchell said the existing deck is small and under the <br />overhang resulting in no area in which to use the lakeshore yard. Nfitchell also noted that <br />the old surv ey did not analyse the width of the driveway, and he is of the opinion that a <br />reduction could be made in this area Mitchell said the turnaround area has never been <br />enough for more than one vehicle and noted that no parking is allowed in the street. The <br />small lots in the area and driveway conditions create a need for variances. In what <br />Mitchell believes brings clarity to the issue, the proposal results in the property becoming <br />less non-conforming. He noted that no additional variances were required. <br />There were no public comments <br />Jabbour asked for clariftcation regarding the decks Mitchell had spoken about an <br />existing deck but the deck in question is new. Gaflfon noted that there are two different <br />decks. <br />Kelley said he had no problem with the deck as matching hardcover is being removed in <br />the same 75-250' zone. <br />Jabbour noted that a building permit was needed. <br />1^1 Vt ■ -ni 1— ■