My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#4751-variances-2002
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
H
>
Highwood Road
>
4195 Highwood Road - 07-117-23-44-0095
>
Resolutions
>
#4751-variances-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:41:03 PM
Creation date
2/16/2017 1:28:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
4195
Street Name
Highwood
Street Type
Road
Address
4195 Highwood Rd
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
0711723440095
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
, ' �► <br /> � <br /> �--- <br /> � O� • <br /> O O <br /> �,. CITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> �� �,'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��s�oj rvo. a 7 0� � <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on January 22,2002 and <br /> recommended approval of variances by a vote of 6 to 0. <br /> 4. Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance to permit the 10' <br /> residential addition into the average lakeshore setback based on the following <br /> findings of fact: <br /> A. The intent of the average lakeshore setback ordinance is to protect lake views <br /> enjoyed by adjacent residential buildings. <br /> B. Views from the neighboring house, located east of the applicant's property, <br /> would be minimally impacted to the lake based on the side by side location <br /> of the houses. <br /> C. The house to the west is located approximately 120' from the applicant's <br /> . house. <br /> D. The applicant's house is located at a much higher elevation than the house <br /> located to the west: <br /> E. Because the addition is to east side of the house, the visual mass of the <br /> addition is not visible from the neighbor's house. ' <br /> 5. By a vote of 6 to 0 the Planning Commission recommended approval for an <br /> expansion of the detached garage. The recommendation differs from the applicant's <br /> request because the Planning Commission concluded the size of the detached garage <br /> should not be greater than 1,000 s.f. based on the follow-ing findings: <br /> A. The applicant's request to extend the existing building by 12 ft.would result <br /> in a building size of 1,056 s.f. The rationale behind the recommendation to <br /> allow a building with a maximum size of 1,000 s.f. is based on the code <br /> classification of accessory buildings over 1,000 s.f. in size. Any building in <br /> that category is defined as an oversized accessorv buildina Oversized <br /> accessory buildings are required to meet principal building setbacks. In this <br /> case the building would be required to meet a 30' setback rather than 15'. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.