Laserfiche WebLink
�o�o <br /> C ITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �� G� 663 � <br /> NO. <br /> 9kFSH��� <br /> A8. Applicant is proposing to meet the required 50' rear yard setback. The proposed 30' <br /> stoop/35' house front setback is consistent with the street setbacks of the newer homes <br /> directly to the south and across Keene Avenue. The 14' setback from the south side lot <br /> line is more typical of a setback that would be found in a neighborhood of similar-sized <br /> 1/3-1/2 acre lots. The proposed house plans have been revised to a lookout rather than a <br /> walkout design in order to establish the lowest level as a basement and avoid a variance <br /> for the house being defined as three stories where only 2-1/2 stories are allowed. <br /> A9. The applicant's surveyor failed to account for the deck in his structural coverage <br /> calculation. Because the top of the deck railing is more than 6 feet above existing grade, <br /> the deck counts toward structural coverage, yielding 16.6% where only 15% is allowed. <br /> This results in the need for a lot coverage variance. <br /> A10. The lot coverage variance is justifiable based on the following: <br /> - The proposed deck will be minimally visible from Dickenson Street due to the <br /> topography of the site, and hidden from view from Keene Avenue and the southerly <br /> neighbor by virtue of its location relative to the house; <br /> - There was more structural coverage on this site in 2008 than is proposed today; and <br /> - While the deck could be built lower, that would require an imrnediate step down of <br /> approximately two feet from the door accessing the deck, which should be avoided from <br /> a safety and practicality standpoint, and is a practical difficulty. <br /> Al 1. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances <br /> upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br /> conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br /> of property in the surrounding area. <br /> VARIANCE ANALYSIS: <br /> B1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes <br /> and intent of the ordinance . . . ." Single family homes and the associated amenities are <br /> permitted uses in the RR-1B district. The requested variances if granted would allow <br /> construction of a single family home on the property. <br /> B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan." The proposed new residence structure is consistent with the <br /> comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />