07-17-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JULY 17, 1995 (#8 - #2038 Dick Hcit - Continued) Mabusth reported that the application is for a 10x28* two-story addition to the lakeside of the residence The present lower level screened porch will be replaced with another screened porch and open deck The upper level will include an extension of the dining room, instead of an enclosed porch as originally proposed, and a deck Hardcover improvements exist as they were in the l980*-» review, no new improvements have been installed. A City turnaround was probably not included in the prior calculations Hardcover calculations now include areas of both lots. The property is made up of two lots Rowlette asked if there was a drainage problem on the north side of the lot The applicant said there had been but was in the process of solving the problem through drain tiling Heit has dug a ditch to install the drain tile It was suggested that the rock area not be driven over to prevent erosion Mabust* reported that there is a vacant lot adjacent to the property. An average lakeshore setback variance is required but opined that the proposed additional cncroachmem of 2' would not impact adjacent properties, noting the vacant unbuildable lot to north »de. one residence to south on higher elevations located 90'+ from shared lot line. Lindquist asked if part of the garage encroached onto Elmwood. It was found that the road was not in the platted right of way but located in applicant's eastern lot. Applicant's garage and driveway are located in street right of way.. There were no public comments. The hardcover in the 0-75' zone is not structural but a stairway. The large amount of hardcover in the 75-250* /one included the large turnaround installed by the City. Mabusth asked the applicant to combine the two lots as part of the application. It was noted that two lots that do not abut each other can be combined as long as the City approves. The additional 2" proposed into the side yard setback is caused by the angle of the addition. This setback is to the vacant lot side of the property. The applicant noted that he was informed that the owner of the 50* lot cannot build on a lot that narrow. Mabusth confirmed this from an earlier variance application. Berg moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2038 for side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances to include the legal combination of Lots 8 and 19, and the removal of the landscape areas as shown. Staff has been asked to have the City Engineer look at the erosion problem on the north side and make any determinations necessary. Ayes 4, Nays 0.