06-10-1985 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

COUNCIL MEETING To: Mayor Butler, Mark Bernhardson, City Administrator 10191c5 Orono Council Members From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Adm� istrator CITY OF ORONO Date: May 30, 1985 Subject: #914 Richard C. Kauffmann, 2696 Ethel. Avenue - Variance Zoning District - LR-lC - 1/2 Acre or 21,780 s.f. minimum lot area Total Area of Lot = 29,343 s.f. Lot Width at Lakeshore = 98'.35 Lot Width at Proposed Building Site = 108' Application - Variance to average lakeshore setback line of approximately 17' for proposed new residence. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Property Owners List Ex!.ibit C - ..at Map Exhibit D - Lot Line Rearrangement Exhibit E - Pulver Letter Exhibit F - Kearns Letter Exhibit G - Survey/Site Plan The applicant seeks a variance to the average lakeshore setback line for construction of new residence. The lot has ar, existing residence that is currently occupied by lat:ves of the applicant. The application shows the current owner to rc 'chmitz. Planning Commission approved a lot line rearrangement for L vious owner, Jack Hamlett, in 1984. The applicant has a. ".hat the present structure remain in use during construction. he y has allowed in the past the use of an existing structure by the r, dent/owner during a reconstruction period. Pending final resolution of the placement of the new house, the City will ask that the applicant obtain from the current owner and occupant of existing residence a written statement confirming his understanding of the City's request that the house be removed prior to final inspection for new residence. The proposed house extends approximately 17 feet beyond the average setback line. The applicant contends the unique roof design and varied elevations of the roof will no' cr—te viewing problems for adjacent home owners. The elevations of the wii w heights of the adjacent homes have been designated on the survey but .got the various roof elevations of the proposed structure. In the original application reviewed by the Planning Commission, the applicant had asked for a 32 foot ext.c-nsic,n beyond the original lakesna e setback line. The adjacent and most affected homeowners objected to the proposed setback line. A compromise was reached by both the applicant ane homeowners and they agreed that a 17 foot setback, qiven the unique roof design and elevations, would create no viewing problem.