Laserfiche WebLink
’ i • ^ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 18,2005 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />\W5-3103 Jack and Kari Olson, Continued) <br />BremM^noved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Applica^on M)5-3101, Ja(6k and Kari <br />Olson, lM6.^adywood Road, to a 20* by 20’ detached garage sn^ect to^Cproposed <br />hardcover rMVctions in the aj^icants’ revised plan. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nay^ 5jj(ahn, Jurgens, <br />Kempf, Fritxler ahil^ink^jr^posed. <br />'Winkey moved, Ra)»d"Mcon^e4^to recommend denial of Appllcatio^iiil^3103, Jacik^d Kari <br />Olson, 1966Sh^^oodRoad, wHiithe recommendation that anj^dturc proposal forVgaragf <br />conform wl <br />li|the recoi <br />coverageU <br />11. 805-3104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCE, <br />9:02 PJM.-9:16 P.M. <br />David and Renee Mack, Applicants, and Richard Sterling, Builder, were present <br />Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to remove a detached garage, <br />construct a garage attached to the house, add footprint additions to the house, and construct a second story <br />addition over die house and the new attached garage. The following variances are being requested: <br />1.A rear yard setback variance for a 10-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required for the <br />attached garage; and <br />2. A hardcover variance for 27 percent within the 0-75* zone and 53 percent within die 7S ’-2S0’ <br />zone; and <br />3.A structural coverage variance for 24.5 percent structure where 15 percent is normally allowed <br />and 16 percent currently exists; and <br />4.A lake sediack variance to expand the house footprint further into the required 75’ lake setback, <br />a 57-foot setback currendy exists, and 51 feet is proposed. <br />Staff recommends approval of the second story additions but recommends denial of the lake setback, <br />hardcover, and structural coverage variances in order to expand the house footprint more lakeward than <br />the existing footprint. Should the Planning Commission find that the depth of the lot serves as a hardship <br />justifying the 10-foot rear yard setback, Planning Staff recommends approval of an attached garage. <br />Curtis stated the size of the garage as proposed may not be supported by the hardcover and structural <br />coverage constraints. <br />Mr. Mack stated they would like to increase their living space to make room for their expanding family. <br />Rahn stated the biggest issue is the structural coverage on the lot and that the footprint of the structure in <br />his opiniim has to be determined prior to resolving the other issues. <br />PAGE 25 <br />mi tf/hSi