10/08/2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE � ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,October 8,2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD,4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued) 2. Approval of a side, street setback variance to allow the proposed deck to be set back 5 feet from the west side street lot line; 3. Approval of lot width and lot area variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot width and lot area variances. Staff recommends approval of a side street setback ranging from 7.6 feet to 10 feet from the west lot line where a 35-foot side street setback is required. This is justified based on the minimum width garage proposed and the narrowness of the lot. However, Staff continues to recommend that the deck be redesigned to meet a 10- foot setback from the alley lot line rather than the 3.5 to 4-foot setback proposed or the 5-foot setback recommended by the Planning Commission. Curtis noted the applicants have provided a revised survey and plans. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the plans in detail but expects all engineering issues to be addressed prior to drafting a resolution. McMillan asked what size the deck would be if it was reduced down to meet a 10-foot setback. Rahn stated it appears to be 5.5 feet. Curtis indicated there would be more width at the lake end but at the top of the deck there would be 5 to 5.5 feet. Curtis stated the applicants can speak to the reasons for the proposed design. Rahn stated his personal belief is that these homes that are next to fire lanes have a tendency to encroach into the fire lane, and to allow a brand new home to encroach is not the right path to go down. Rahn stated in his view the fire lanes are underutilized throughout the City and that the four borders for each fire lane should be identified. Rahn commented it could be that the City ends up receiving complaints from the property owner if people are down at the beach and they have a deck that is close to that area. Rahn stated he is in agreement with Staff and sees no reason for the deck to encroach. Michael Sharratt,Designer, sta.ted they started with a very nonconforming situation with a home that is located 2.5 feet from the east property and a garage that is 0 feet from the side alley line. Sharratt commented he is saddened that applicants are seldom congratulated for doing a good job,which is what has been done here. The applicants are asking for the side yard setback to accommodate the deck. The deck has been cantilevered so it will not touch the ground. The reason for the variance request is that without it,the deck would end up being seven feet wide, which basically does not allow for a table and chairs. Sharratt indicated they do have an option to place the deck in front of the great room windows on the first floor,but that when you have a lot that is roughly 40 feet above the lake,you would not be able to see the shoreline if you were sitting on the deck. The applicants have small children and would like to be able to see the shoreline and yard,which is the reason the deck was located on the side of the house. Sharratt stated they felt that a cantilevered structure would be an acceptable encroachment given all the other nonconformities that have been resolved. Sharratt noted they are under the 25 percent hardcover limit and under the structural coverage limit. The plan also exceeds the street setback and meets the east side setback. Sharratt noted the home is only 23'/6"wide and that their setback variance seems like a reasonable request. Page 8 of 21