Laserfiche WebLink
To: Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: July 13, 1988 <br />Subject: #1307 Diane and Douglas Merz 3195 Watertown Road Variance <br />Public Hearing <br />Application - Construct a deck within required street yard setback. <br />Zoning District - RR-1B, 2 acre rural resiapntial <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Application <br />Exhibit B - Plat Map <br />Exhibit C - Property Owners List <br />Exhibit D - Sur ay <br />Exhibit E - Proposed Deck Plans <br />Exhibit F - Staff Sketch of Deck Proposal Showing Relationship to <br />Roads <br />Pertinent Facts <br />1. This is a corner lot and has frontage on both Watertown Road and Leaf <br />Street. The RR-lB zone requires a 50' structural setback from a side <br />street. The existing house, which has been there for many years, is <br />located approximately 1' from the west property line, and the proposed deck <br />structure will to approximately 11' from that lot line at the closest <br />point. <br />2. Because the deck structure requires a railing, the deck does not meet <br />the intent of the non -encroachment st--`ion, and must meet the required <br />setback. <br />3. The applicant notes that this deck replaces an existing deck which <br />they have recently removed due to its roor condition. There is very little <br />evidence to suggest the size of the pie -existing deck, however, there are <br />no nail holes or evidence that- the deck ever was wrapped around the house <br />to the north side. Perhaps the applicant can provide pictures to show what <br />that existing deck looked like. <br />4. The proposed deck is laid out to keep only a 1' setback from the well, <br />where a 3' well -to -structure setback is required. If '` s deck is <br />approved, it must be reaesigned to meet that 3' setback requ __!-•. t. <br />5. Construction on this deck was commenced without a permit, and was red - <br />tagged by the building inspector. According to the inspector, the <br />applicants stated they didn't realize a permit was required to replace an <br />existing deck. <br />o. It is staffs up?r'nn that this deck will havf- absolutely no effect on <br />neighboring propert�Y�. �:nd will have nu negative effe.ts on the <br />r <br />