Laserfiche WebLink
■:1= <br />j' <br />Toi Mayor Peterson t Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Moorse <br />% <br />V <br />VroBt <br />Omtmt <br />SubjectI <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning i Zoning Admi <br />November 4, 1991 <br />•1682» Christine Brickley, 3262 North Shore Drive - <br />Variance - Resolution <br />% <br />SoaiB9 Dietrict ~ LR-1C>1» Single family lakeshore residential, <br />1/2 acre, unsewered <br />Spplieetioa ~ Request for variances to construct detached garage <br />List of libita <br />Sxhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Bxhlbit C <br />Exhibit D <br />Resolution <br />Notice of Planning Commission Action 10/23/91 <br />Sketch by Staff <br />Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/91 <br />■otot <br />This application unfortunately has changed to an after-the-fact <br />situation. The weekend after the Planning Commission meeting, <br />construction was commenced on the proposed garage without final <br />Oouncil action nor a building permit. This came to staff's attention <br />on Monday, October 28th and a stop work order was posted. The <br />applicant was advised that work could not continue until such time <br />tnat the Council approves the necessary variances and a building <br />permit is issued. To make matters worse, the garage was not <br />coaatructad per the revised plan approved by the Planning Commission. <br />Tho roof was pitched such that half its runoff is directed to the side <br />lot line where only a 3' setback was proposed, and this will <br />potentially direct runoff to the neighboring property. <br />iom <br />Pleare review the memos and exhibits of October 14th and <br />•optambor 6th. Briefly, the applicant poured a slab without <br />oemtacting the City nor obtaining any approval for her intended garage <br />construction. The inspection staff found the slab belnc poured in <br />lato August, and advised the owner of the apparent problems that would <br />bo encountered in constructing a garage at that location. The <br />subaaguont survey found that the slab was poured 3.3* from the west <br />lot line and 2.6* from the south lot line. Applicant intended to <br />coaatruct a 1,0S6 s.f. garage on this 32'x32* slab. She was advised <br />of the need for a number of variances and made application. After the <br />initial flaaning Commission review in Septemberat which tabl^iji^ <br />occurred, applicant revised her proposal to a 768 s.f. (24*x32 <br />garage