07-25-2005 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE . ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (3. #05 -3091 CATHERINE SALLAS, 3635 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued) Gaffron explained that, while the inspectors have performed the preliminary review, it is not uncommon nor were the inspectors concerned with having to return later. Curtis stated that the property had been sold and that the new owner had agreed to the removals of the stair and railing on the deck before the expiration. Murphy moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5356, A Resolution granting side, lake setback and hardcover variances in conjunction with removal of the portion of the grade -level deck which extend past the average lakeshore setback line. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4. #05 -3104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD — VARIANCE Curtis explained that the applicants submitted a revised proposal to the Planning Commission and are requesting a number of variances in order remove a detached garage, construct a garage attached to the house, footprint additions to the house, and a 2 "d story addition over the house and the new attached garage. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the lake setback variance for a 2" d story addition above the existing footprint; a hardcover variance within the 0 -75' zone for 25% hardcover; a hardcover variance within the 75' -250' zone to allow an attached garage; and additions not to exceed the existing level (16 %) of structural coverage, while • reducing the proposed driveway hardcover (eliminate the turn around loop). Though the applicants have submitted a revised plan, the plans still require a structural coverage variance for 18% where 16% currently exists. Curtis stated that the Planning Staff continues to recommend denial of the structural coverage variance in order to expand the house footprint square footage. Sansevere stated that he was having difficulty finding a hardship to warrant 18 %. Mr. Mack stated that the size of the lot was his hardship. At 100'X100', the lot was not too deep or wide. The applicants' architect stated that they had scaled back the garage to get closer to the structural coverage limitation. Gaffron noted that the 2% difference in structural coverage amounted to roughly 280 s.f. Murphy stated that he found it difficult to find a hardship to support the variance. He urged the applicant to build a small house to fit the small lot. Mack stated that his neighbor near the channel had recently been granted a variance to build a 20X22' detached garage near the channel. McMillan stated that the current structural cover is 16 %, noting that the additions to the house and garage have brought it to 18 %. PAGE 2 of 10