07-17-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^USSION MEETING HELD ON JLl-Y 17. 1995 (#5 - #2034 Mary & Gene Zulk - Continued) Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2034 for a cov^ed deck addition to the street side vwith removal of the stone patio on the northeast, t\ith the disclaimer of allowing no additional structural improvements on the property in the ^ture without the removal of existing structure. Ayes 4, Nays 0. <#6) #2036 ROBERT J. GOUTANIS, 1098 tOMA LINDA AVENUE • VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING 8:01-8:37 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Goutanis was present. Mabusth reported that the original resideiKe was built in 1934. The garage encroaches 6" imo the public right-of-way, which is a lakeshore access used year around with a swimming dock. Structural failings have been found within the existing foundation. The applicam proposes 3x8' rounding off of the structure at the southeast and northeast comers The applicant has proposed three options by which to proceed and is asking for a recommendation fiom the Planning Commission as to which option they would approve. Case # 1 would involve partial foundation repairs at the lakeside with an renovation of the first floor only. The condition of the remaining foundation would not enable any expansion of the second floor. Case #2 involves a complete replacement of the foundation Both cases 1 and 2 would require the house to be raised In this case, improvements would also be made to the secoiKl floor level, all within the same footprint There would be a slight encroachment of the lakeshore yard hy tlie steps and sti>op of 4* The detached garage would stay the same at 24x22', as in case #1, w ith side relocation of the garage door. The 6" encroachment would remain. Hardcover statistics reflect the increase in hardcover. A side setback variance is needed in this case. Case #3 would relocate the home further away from the lake with the same footprint It would improve the left side setback to 10’, where house is 6-1/2* from lot line The garag«^ would be the same but would now be attached and still encroach 6". The upper level improvements would now include a deck to the lakeside This would not involve any encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line as it would not extend beyond the given footprint located further away from lake Lindquist asked if the Commission could approve an application that encroaches on the (Hiblic right-of-way. Mabusth replied that she would lio()e tltis would not occur. I