Laserfiche WebLink
To: <br />Dates <br />Mayor Peterson ( Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zo <br />April 17, 1991 <br />% <br />Subjects #1626 Tim and Beth Traff, 268 3 North Shore Driv^^j^. <br />Variance <br />Soolag District - LR-IA, Single family lakeshore residential, 2* <br />acre, sewered <br />Application ~ Request for side setback, lot area and lot width <br />variances to construct new residence. <br />List of Bshibits <br />Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice of 3/21/91 <br />Exhibit B - Planning Commission Minutes of 3/18-20/91 <br />Exhibit C - Memo 6 Exhibits of 3/8/91 <br />Diseassiem - <br />Please review the memo and exhibits of March 8, 1991. <br />Briefly, applicants' existing residence is on a 1 acre sewered <br />lot in the 2 acre zone* The existing house is 2' from the lot <br />line. Applicants propose to remove the existing house and <br />construct a new residence on the property. They request lot <br />width and lot area variances, and an east side setback variance <br />of 5.5' (revised from 7') to allow the new residence to be 24.5' <br />from the lot line. <br />The neighboring property owners to the east, who are most <br />affected by the setback variance request, are not opposed to the <br />variances. The Mitchells, property o%mers to the immediate west, <br />have expressed concern that the new home will be extremely close <br />to their property and perhaps encroach on their privacy to a <br />degree# although the proposed construction meets setback and <br />average lakeshore setback requirements on the Mitchell side of <br />the property. <br />Hanniag Coesiission Recoanendation - <br />Planning Commission reviewed this request at their March <br />18/20th meeting# and on a vote of 3 to 1, recommended denial of <br />the side setback variance based on no hardship being sho%m since <br />new construction could be redesigned to not need this variance. <br />The motion included a recommendation for approval of the lot <br />area/lot width variances. <br />Planning Commission clearly felt that applicants should be <br />allowed to construct a new residence on the property# but the <br />majority felt that the standard building envelope left sufficient <br />width at the average lakeshore setback line (approximately 43*) <br />that a residence could be designed and constructed without the <br />need for setback variances. <br />fVfe