06-17-1996 Planning 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 ret^uest for hardcover variance was due to the construction of a 207 s.f deck to the lakeside of the residence GafTi on said the property was originally in ownership wah an adjacent lot, which was subsequently sold Each lot now has a house with amenities A resolution in 1984 allowed for 2775 s f of hardcover, or 25? o of the 75'-250’ zone A permit w as 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*0 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 back 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 ofliaidcovei. 270 s f nioic 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 elTort at that time to ensure that a new owner would be aware of these restrictions The stairway is 3'xl9' long with a 6'xl3' landing, where 4'x4' is allowed GatTron said the square footage of the structure is not much more than code would allow, but since it is aftei-lhe-fact, it is necessaiy to review the stiuctuic. Gaffron noted that the present owner has owned the property since 1991. The applicant. Albrecht, disputed the calculations of the hardcov er It was noted that the hardcover calculation in 19% included the entire properly, while only the 75'-250' ^onc was included in the calculation in 1991 GatTron 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 necessaiy foi safely. 4 i