06-27-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Nvres OF THE OtCWO fLAWWG COMMISSIONHELHONMAV I«» I9N TING (#7) #lfft JAMES K. AND JUUE ANN LVNCH-DANIELS, 1225 ODONO OAKS DWVE • RENEWAL CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCES - COrniNUATION OF PURUC HEARING (CONTINUED) • :i tcoostmcttag a driveway, subject to the oowlitioas listed in the staff report. Bill stated be was the desagner and builder and was present representing the applicants iner Chair Schroeder noted this was a pnbhc hearing, and no one present wished to address the Cbnunission. Bonner staled that they had snbaiitled a new survey for completion of the driveway started some years ago, and he noted that they are moving a portion of the original fill which was misplaced, back withia the existing easement boundary. He slated they propose to put in a new culvert and move more fill in so that the fill will cany the we^t of the traffic. He introduced Max Norton, the landscape architect, who concurred with this. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of #1918 Conditional Use Permit for Janies K. and Julie Ann Lynch-Daaiels at 1225 Orono Oaks Drive, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Ayes 6, nays 0. (#S) #1919 TV BUCEY, 2fi77 CASCO POINT ROAD • VARIANCES • SECOND PUBLIC HEARING • RENOTIFICATION Chair Schroeder noted that the Ortificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of PuMicatioa were on file with the City. Gafffon reviewed the staff report. Chair Schroeder read a petition which had been submitted by neighborhood resi^nts in support of the applicatioo and a letter from the neighbor directly to the north. Dr. Carl Shutts, into the record. Chair Schroeder noted that the drainage issue appeared to have been resolved and the applicant has reduced th height of the house a^ g^raf^ to address the concerns of adjacent residents. Rowlette commented that it appeared that the boat house needed some repairs made and she stated that if the cost of those repairs exceeded 75% of the value of the boat house, then it would have to be removed. Gaffion reviewed the ordinance requirements relating to structures within the 0-75 foot setback area and how they applied to boat houses. Nolan stated that while there was sojie reduction in height, he was concerned about the building footprint area. Mr. Bucey responded that they have added a deck and made a connection between the house and garage, but essentially the footprint is the same as the original house. Nolan stated he felt the house was too large for the lot. Chair Schroeder stated that the house had been lowered significantly which would help with the sight lines from the adjacent residential properties. Peterson commented he