07-15-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) Gafiron reported that the application was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting where it was recommended for denial The Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission for llirther review with changes made by the applicant The original proposal was for an after-the-fact hardcover variance for a deck located in the lakeshore yard outside of the 0-75’. Hardcover is excessive on this property, and the applicant has suggested a number of areas where hardcover can be removed to reduce the impact. Suggestion has been made for removal of 255 s f of driveway, revision to the front entry sidewalk, which would have no affect on the hardcover, and omission of landscape paving blocks on the north side. This would result in a net decrease of 205 s f of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone originally proposed at a 35 s f reduction Gaffron noted that the applicant has submitted a different lot area calculation in the 75-250' zone of J t 590 s.f, which Gaffron said was satisfactory to Staff. Peterson clarified that the hardcover is over the 25% allowable The new exhibit 4 shows the new calculations of 43.5% of hardcover, originally proposed at 41.7%, for an additional 1.8% decrease Albrecht's attome>’. Bob Mitchell, commented on the additional data provided to the Commission He noted that the site is complicated and pre-dates the applicant. The lot was said to be long and skinny. Mitchell said there is no parking on the street which results in the need for less removal of driveway than the applicant wouid perhaps suggest. Mitchell said the lakeshore angles at this location. He added that the applicant was not fiilly aware of the previous review of the property. Mitchell noted that the improvement is out of the 0-75', and the after-the-fact deck improves the front yard situation for the applicant allowing them to see where their children are playing. The yard drops off towards the shoreline and limits the amount of yard space on the lakeshore side. Peterson questioned the situation with the dock located near the lakeshore He noted that the Commissioners were in favor of reducing that dock to the required 90-100 s.f, instead of the present 135 s f Mitchell said the applicant was in favor of that resolution. Mitchell also commented that the applicant thought he was able to rebuild that dock on a board-to- board basis Gaffron said the parameters allow for a 4' stairway with a platform area. He noted this particular dock increases to 6' "*ue to the centering of the dock on the property. Peterson said, at the time of the original denial of the application, this particular dock was not a large issue. The dock and deck were after-the-fact, and the applicant purchased the home without checking on the current codes. Albrecht said he though* '< v'as okay to replace the dock, as it stood. Gaffron said Staff did not inspect the ref •?cement since no permit was issued. Mitchell said it was not the applicant's fauK that no original permit was taken out, but the applicant did rebuild it board-for-board. He asked the Commission to accept the explanation as an honest one.