Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 11, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(4. #06 -3206 KEN AND L ORIJEAN ANDERSON, 4225 FOREST LAKE DRIVE, Continued) <br />Murphy stated he understands the desire for a square garage, but that he was not aware of a hardship that <br />existed to allow the corner of the garage to encroach into the setback. <br />Anderson stated if the house were rotated two degrees, it would not require a variance. <br />McMillan inquired whether that part of the residence was remodeled at one time. <br />Anderson stated that part was constructed in the 1960's. <br />Turner stated it is possible the house would not have fit on the lot if it had been rotated. <br />Murphy inquired whether the second story addition could be constructed without the encroachment. <br />Danbury indicated it could be and that the second story living space is not over the garage. Danbury <br />indicated that section of the garage might require a flat roof if the encroachment is not allowed. <br />McMillan inquired how deep the existing garage is. <br />Anderson stated the garage is approximately 25 feet. <br />• <br />Danbury pointed out the third garage stall would only be ten feet deep. • <br />Murphy commented the Council allowed the deck to be larger than what the Planning Commission had <br />recommended but that he does not see a hardship for the encroachment. <br />White inquired whether the applicant would like to proceed forward with the plan as approved by the <br />Council. <br />Anderson stated he is willing to remove the hardcover that was discussed earlier but that he does not want <br />to reduce the deck if he is not allowed the garage to be squared off. <br />Bremer stated the reason why the Planning Commission recommended approval of the side lot line <br />setback variance and removing a section of the deck is because a portion of the deck is located within the <br />0 -75 foot setback zone and the adjoining lot is vacant. In addition, the applicant would be losing a <br />substantial amount of storage under the deck and the Planning Commission felt it would be better to have <br />the items stored inside and therefore felt the variance was justified. Bremer stated in her opinion Plan A <br />would benefit the neighborhood. <br />McMillan commented that typically when a second story is added, the house is not as likely to become a <br />tear -down at some point in the future. <br />Anderson stated the existing driveway currently covers the area where the garage extension is proposed. <br />The driveway extends past the garage extension and that portion of the driveway would be removed if the <br />garage is squared off. <br />McMillan inquired what the structural coverage is at on this lot. <br />PAGE 4 of 20 <br />