My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-14-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1994
>
03-14-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/8/2023 1:27:51 PM
Creation date
12/8/2023 1:23:16 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
465
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Request for CouiKil Action continued <br />page 3 of 4 <br />March 9, 1994 <br />Zoning File #1897 <br />In 1983 the original owner received approval of hardcover and lakeshore setback variances tor <br />a proposed two stall garage with storage area resulting in a total of 5,652 s.f. or 12.2%, review <br />Exhibits K, L and M. In 1986 the current owner received approval of a hardcover variance and <br />lakeshore setback variance for a proposed two stor>' addition consisting of a 192 s.f. located 42 <br />front the shoreline of Stubbs Bay and approval for a spa at a total of 100 s.f., review Exhibits <br />N, O and B. Applicants chose to install spa over a portion of existing deck resulting in only 40 <br />s.f. of new hardcover. A condition of that variance approval required applicants to remove <br />some 800 s.f. of existing gravel driveway to the west side of the narrow driveway. <br />Jane Piccard was present during the review of the variance application at the February meeting. <br />Unfortunately, the applicant did not undcrsund the issues being raised by the Planning <br />Commission nor did she relate to the conditions of the approval. Planning Commission did not <br />approve an overhang along the channel area because it would have required a more intense <br />variance setback at 37 1/2’. Both the DNR and the Planning Commission limited any <br />encroachment of the channel area to 39’. The Planning Commission understood applicant to <br />state at the January meeting that the overhang along Maxwell Bay side of the structure would <br />be held at 1 1/2’. Applicants propose a 3 1/2’ overhang with a reduction to 2’ overhang at the <br />comer of the structure so as not to exceed a 50 ’ setback required by the DNR. The Planning <br />Commission recommended approval of the 1 1/2’ overhang along Maxwell Bay which would <br />have required approval of a 50 ’6" setback from Maxwell Bay. The 3 1/2’ overhang proposed <br />by applicants would result in 40 s.f. of additional hardcover proposed at a total of 11%. <br />Planning Commission approved total hardcover at 10.9%. Please review Exhibits B-1, B-2 and <br />B-3. <br />Issues to be Resolved by Council <br />A. Strucmral setback from channel; ^ <br />1. Planning Commission approval would require structure to maintain at 39 . If <br />overhang is required than structure should be reduced in width. <br />2. Approval of 37 1/2’ setback as proposed by applicants. Applicants to seek <br />approval of DNR for further encroachment of 39’ setback. <br />B Maxwell Bay structural setback; <br />1. To approve per Planning Commission recommendation with an overhang not to <br />exceed 1 1/2’ along Maxwell Bay, maintain a 50 1/2’ setback and total hardcover <br />at 10.9% ; or
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.