09-22-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Gaffron pointed out that the applicant has requested a number of v^ances to enclose a^rtion of a second story deck, expand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construct an no increase or a slight decrease. 2. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch. Street setback variance of 1 .5' for attached garage. • ________—frnm 14.02 % to 16.79 3. Street setback vanance oi i.j lor mui^ncu 5oia5v. 4. Lot coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. As proposed, Gaffron noted that the applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existmg 1 st story deck, requinng average setback variance. 2) Add a 68 s.f. portion of deck requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance. 3) Add an attached 24'x24’ 2-stall garage requiring a street setback variance of 1.5 which results in a lot coverage excess. 4) Extend roof to cover entire front porch. recent hardcover approval allowed 4,910 s.t mine/3-zDU zone. 5238 s.f i.e. an excess of 328 s.f. It is apparent by comparing the 1995 approval and the current survey that this is almost entirely due to overages in the driveway and front walkway. Gaffron shared 5 issues for consideration and indicated that: 1 Staff recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the nftrtion of existing 1 “ story deck. 2. 3. portion of existing 1 “ story deck. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. Staff recommends that the applicants determine where hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. primmiccion sViould considcF whclhcF fuTthcf h^dcovcf rcitiovHls bring the property into conformance with me 4,v lu s.i. iimu impo^cu u/ 3578. Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover remova s can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. 4.Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the attached garage, finding that neither is supported by hardship. As such Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission could either send this forw ard to Council with conditions; or table for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects arc feasible and which should not be pursued). Page 7 of 22