Laserfiche WebLink
r � <br /> , � O� . <br /> • O �'3. O . <br /> 9. � . CITY of ORONO <br /> � -� � <br /> � ..,-. <br /> ti <br /> �'',� �j'�' � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> ��kESI3�4� NO. � � � � <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#03-2877. <br /> � 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District,where 1 acre is the minimum <br /> required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.21 acres. <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 17, 2003 <br /> and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> A. The existing residence was built in 1990,prior to the current zoning <br /> ordinance; <br /> B. The 8,950 s.f. (0.21 acre) lot with a 50' width does not meet the minimum lot <br /> � ` • area(43,�60 s.f. or 1 acre) nor lot width(140')requirements for the district; <br /> . C. There is no hardship to support the proposed 28.3' setback from the rear lot <br /> line. Therefore,the proposed addition must be located no closer than the <br /> required 30'setback from the street, further reducing hardcover and structural <br /> coverage on the property; <br /> D. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 374 s.f. (10.03%)to 337 <br /> s.f. (9.03%)where none is permitted in the 0 to 75' hardcover zone by <br /> removing a shed, deck and brick patio; <br /> E. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 3,508 s.f. (67.2%) to 3,396 <br /> s.f. (65.06%) where 1,305 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75'to 250' hardcover <br /> zone by removing brick patio and reducing the main landing deck; <br /> F. The application proposes to reduce structural coverage from 2,239 s.f. (35%) <br /> to 2,016 s.f. (22.53%)where 1,500 s.f. is permitted by removing a deck, shed <br /> and by reducing the proposed overhangs to an encroachment of no more than <br /> 1.75'; <br /> G. The side setbacks will remain 8.4' on the north side and increase from 5' to <br /> 6.5'on the south side with the application; <br /> H. There is no hardship demonstrated that�vould support the variances for the <br /> proposed decorative wall encroachment, and allowing it would decrease views � <br /> of the lake enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. <br /> . � <br /> _ Page 2 of 6 <br />