Laserfiche WebLink
i ' • 1 ' <br /> �O� <br /> O O <br /> a . ;-. � <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> ti <br /> �'t�� �G~ RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> `�kEsKo4 No. � � 2 g <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission initially reviewed this application at a public <br /> hearing held on June 16,2003 and subsequently at a continued hearing held on July <br /> 28, 2003. The applicants revised their initial proposal, and on July 21, 2003 <br /> the Planning Commission recommended partial denial and conditional approval of <br /> the variances needed for the revised propcsal on a 7-0 vote,based on the following <br /> , findings: <br /> a) The property contains an existing residence structure and detached garage. <br /> The applicants wish to remove the existing detached garage,add an attached <br /> garage to portions of the existing ho�ase,and construct a second story addition <br /> over the new garage and existing�ouse. A portion of the existing house is <br /> located less than 75'from the shornline, and th� house sei-erely encroaches <br /> the required 10'yard on bo�h sides. The property also contains an existing <br /> deck within the 0-75' zone and o�er features which constitute additional <br /> hazdcover on the property. <br /> b) Approval for the second story structure encroachment within 0-75' setback <br /> zone,65'from the shoreline is a re�onable request which is supported by the <br /> hardship creatzd by the location of t�'�e existing home. <br /> c) The side setback variances to a11oR- a second story of structure to encroach <br /> within 4.3' of the left side lot line a.*�d within 2.4' of the right side lot line <br /> should not be approved, because the resulting structure �vould tend to <br /> overshadow �djoining properties aad lead to future maintenance issues. <br /> d) The side setback variances reque:ted for an attached �arage addition to <br /> encroach within 6' of the left side lot line should not be approved, as the <br /> garage can be shifted to meet the 10'required side setback«-ith some interior <br /> design changes, and no hardship eLsts to support this request. <br /> e) The removal of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75' zone is appropriate, and <br /> replacement with a smaller 9�s.f.d�ck as proposed,still sli�htly encroaching <br /> the average setback line, is a reasonable request given the location of the <br /> existing house and the minimal i�-npacts on neighboring �-ie�vs of the lake <br /> created by the revised deck proposal. <br /> , <br /> Page2of7 � <br />