Laserfiche WebLink
. � � ' <br /> ��� <br /> � O� <br /> O O <br /> �. CITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> �� G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��`9$EgH,� NO. _ � � 1 '� <br /> �_ <br /> 4. In a second motion the Planning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend <br /> approval of variances to permit a lakeside addition to the residence, creating a <br /> further encroachment into the bluff area. This portion of the project includes the <br /> 13' of additional encroachment for the living room expansion. It was the <br /> ' minority opinion of the Planning Commission that the proposed building addition <br /> could be reduced in size. There was also a question whether a building <br /> expansion towards the lakeshore constitutes a hardship. <br /> , <br /> ' S. The recommendations were based on the following findings and hazdships: <br /> A. The property is ten plus acres. All but approximately 4% of the lot is <br /> located either within wetland, the bluff zone, and the required setbacks. <br /> B. The present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff <br /> ordinance. Any additions to the house would require variances. <br /> C. The site does not drain directly to the lake but rather to the 5-acre <br /> wetland located at the base of the bluff. <br /> D. The topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an <br /> addition onto any part of the building. <br /> E. No addition could be built on the house that would not fall within the <br /> impact zone. <br /> F. The area where the proposed lakeside additions are to be constiucted is <br /> relatively flat with less than a 2' drop from the existing exterior wall and <br /> the proposed wall of the addition. <br /> 6. Planning Cominission voted 7 to 0 to recommend denial of the variance to <br /> permit the garage addition to be located 20.5' from the side property line <br /> where a 30' setback is required. The recommendation of denial is based on the <br /> following: <br /> A. Any addition that would create a side setback encroachment for the <br /> principal building would be inconsistent with the development pattems <br /> intended for properties in the LR-lA zoning district. <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />