Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION <br />MEETING HELD ON NLARCH 20. 1995 <br />(#1 - #2000 - Cortlen Cloutier - Continued) <br />Schroder moved, Peterson seconded, to table application #2000. Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />(#2) #1950 GLENN ITTON. 3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVT - VARLANCES - <br />CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:03 P.M. <br />The Applicant, Mr. Upton, was present. <br />The application originated in the summer of 1994 for an increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ <br />setback requiring a variance for a deck. The Planning Commission denied the application. <br />The applicaiu asked to go back to the Planning Commission wth an amended plan <br />The amended plan is for 192 s f of additional living space and 484 s f for an attached <br />garage The amended proposal is for 52' lakeshore setback, where 75’ is required. It does <br />meet the minimum DNR required setback of 50’. A hardship Ust is included as well as a <br />petition from the neighbors which suppon the second proposal. <br />John Erickson asked where the property was located from him. Erickson asked about the <br />garage location, and how the proposal affects the deeded access and the public right-of- <br />way. The original garage is being removed, and the new garage will be attached to the <br />side of the house. The applicant said that the land crossing the public access had been <br />deeded to him by the county. Schroeder said that this issue docs not affect the <br />application <br />Rowlette informed the applicant of the city ordinance disallowing any boats larger than 20' <br />to be stored outside on a property <br />Schroeder noted the 68 s f increase’m hardcover in the 0-75’ zone with the remainder of <br />the increase in the 75-250’ zone. He also noted the attempt by the applicMt to meet as <br />many requirements as he could and the large number of hardships pertaining to the <br />application <br />Peterson asked about the status of the survey and side setback. It was determined that the <br />survey had been updated last year with the filing of the current application. Mabusth and <br />the applicant confirmed that the side setback requirement was met with 11.3’. <br />Nolan asked if the applicant was willing to remove the shed and other items located in that <br />area, which the applicant said he would. <br />Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve applieznt #2950 as amended with the <br />condition that all hardcover removal be completed prior to construction to include shed <br />and miscellaneous items. The access garage could be retained until the proposed attached <br />garage is completed. Ayes 7, Nays 0.