Laserfiche WebLink
. � � °� � <br /> 0 0 : <br /> � � � CITY of ORONO <br /> ,� . ., � . <br /> , ti <br /> . ��� �G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �kESIIOg' N O. a� Q � � <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission initially reviewed this application at a public <br /> hearing held on June 16,2003 and subsequently at a continued hearing held on July <br /> 28, 2003. The applicants revised their initial proposal, and on July 21, 2003 <br /> the Planning Commission recommended partial denial and conditional approval of <br /> the variances needed for the revised proposal on a 7-0 vote,based on the following <br /> . findings: , <br /> a) The property contains an existing residence structure and detached garage. <br /> The applicants wish to remove the existing detached garage,add an attached <br /> garage to portions of the existing house,and construct a second story addition <br /> � over the new garage and existing house. A portion of the existing house is <br /> located less than 75' from the shoreline, and the house severely encroaches <br /> the required 10'yard on both sides. The property also contains an existing <br /> deck within the 0-75' zone and other features which constitute additional <br /> hardcover on the properly. • <br /> , b) Approval for the second story structure encroachment within 0-75' setback <br /> zone,65'from the shoreline is a reasonable request which is supported by the <br /> hardship created by the location of the existing home. <br /> c) The side setback variances to allow a second story of structure to encroach <br /> within 4.3' of the left side lot line and within 2.4' of the right side lot line <br /> should not be approved, because the resulting structure would tend to <br /> � overshadow adjoining properties and lead to future maintenance issues. � <br /> d) The side setback variances requested for an attached garage addition to <br /> encroach within 6' of the left side lot line should not be approved, as the <br /> garage can be shifted to meet the 10'required side setback with some interior � <br /> � design changes, and no hardship exists to support this request. <br /> e) The removal of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75' zone is appropriate, and <br /> replacement with a smaller 95 s.f.deck as proposed,still slightly encroaching <br /> the average setback line, is a reasonable request given the location of the <br /> existing house and the minimal impacts on neighboring views of the lake <br /> created by the revised deck proposal. � <br /> • (�. <br /> Page 2 of 7 , <br />