My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-25-2008 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2008
>
02-25-2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2015 2:08:43 PM
Creation date
4/8/2015 2:05:07 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
159
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 11, 2008 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br />(6. #08-3338 THOMAS AND KATHERINE ZIEGLER, 2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />of-way of Crystal Bay Road when a 15-foot setback is required, a lakeshore setback variance to create <br />an open porch over a portion of the enclosed porch, and a hardcover variance to allow the steps on the <br />lake side of the house to be relocated to the Crystal Bay Road side of the enclosed porch. <br /> <br />The applicants are proposing a driveway approach that is 26 feet wide at the right-of-way line and 20 <br />feet wide at the edge of the roadway. The code limits the approach to 20 feet at the right-of-way and 30 <br />feet at the edge of the roadway. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the setback variance for the attached <br />garage subject to no additional hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone. If the wider driveway approach is not <br />approved by the Council, the outer edges of the garage doors should be no more than 20 feet apart. <br /> <br />In addition the Planning Commission recommended approval of the lakeshore setback variance for the <br />second floor open porch subject to the porch being left open; approval of the setback variance for the <br />open entry porch, subject to the porch being reduced from five feet to four feet in depth and “wood” <br />columns on masonry bases being substituted for the brick or stone columns; and approval of the <br />hardcover variance to allow the steps and grade-level deck within the 0-75 foot setback. <br /> <br />The grading plan still increases the runoff to the property to the north and lacks details on the proposed <br />drain tile. Staff has suggested the applicant work with the property owner to the north to create a <br />common swale. <br /> <br />Staff supports a second floor deck on the lake side of the house but not a roof over it to create an open <br />porch. Although it will have little, if any, impact on the lake view from the property to the north, it is <br />entirely within the 0-75 foot setback. It would set a precedent for allowing decks within the 0-75 foot <br />zone to be converted to open porches. <br /> <br />Ziegler stated he is attempting to work out an arrangement with his neighbor on the drainage and that he <br />is confident some type of agreement would be reached. Ziegler stated they have done everything they <br />could to reduce the hardcover in all areas. The small portion of roof being added over the deck helps to <br />direct the water runoff and provides protection for the deck. Ziegler stated he would not be opposed to <br />having a stipulation in the file that the deck never be turned into closed space. <br /> <br />Rahn commented the deck hand railing is not required by code but would be considered structural <br />coverage. <br /> <br />Ziegler stated their original plan was a second story over the entire structure, but following discussions <br />with Staff, they revised their plans to reduce the encroachment into the 0-75 foot zone. Ziegler <br />indicated the whole house would have gutters and downspouts. If the roof over the deck is not allowed, <br />Ziegler stated he would probably eliminate it. <br /> <br />Rahn asked whether the Planning Commission was okay with the roof over the front entry. <br /> <br />Turner stated the Planning Commission did not have an issue with the roof over the front entry. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />PAGE 8 of 12 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 02/25/08 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 2/11/08 [Page 8 of 12]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.