Laserfiche WebLink
� , . ��\• <br /> � ��\, <br /> , <br /> � <br /> �' '�'� C ITY of ORONO <br /> ;'j =�:�.:a_� <br /> ,',,� �,��'.-r�--1 �,, 'l <br /> �,�� 'i`. � 1�`;:�� ti:�� <br /> ��'*��?+�'-�i;;r,����,. G'�',' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> � ,�r L 4� � NO. 3064 <br /> � ' St.�.� G. <br /> �kESHO y=' <br /> 4. On October 21, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed a <br /> revised proposal for constructian of a 24' x 32' (768 <br /> s.f.) garage located 3.3' from the west Iot line and <br /> 10.5' from the south lot line, requiring side and rear <br /> setback variances, a lot coverage variance, and a <br /> hardcover variance. The Planning Coanmission voted 6 to <br /> 0 to recommend approva 1 , ba sed on the f o I 1 owing <br /> findings: <br /> A. The proposed 768 s.f. detached garage replaces <br /> a pre-existing 480 s.f. garage, 200 s.f. barn, and <br /> 80 s.f. storage shed with a single structure of <br /> approximately the same square footage as the 3 <br /> pre-existing buildings. <br /> B. The pre-existing 75-250' hardcover was 50.6$. If <br /> an 8' x 32' portion of the concrete garage slab <br /> which was poured without prior approvals is <br /> removed, hardcover on the property would be <br /> reduced to 46.9$ in the 75-250' zone. <br /> C. Lot coverage by structures would remain at the <br /> pre-existing level of 17.5$. The small lot size <br /> of 0.28 acre constitutes a hardship to the <br /> property. Consolidation of 3 storage buildings on <br /> the property into a single building will reduce <br /> the visual density and clutter in the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> D. Locating the garage 10.5' from the south lot line <br /> is justified , from the standpoint that if the <br /> garage was 18 s.f. smaller, only a 10' setback <br /> would be required rather than 15' � for any <br /> accessory building of area 750-1000 s.f. The 3.3' <br /> setback from the west lot line is justified by the <br /> need to maintain the full 32' depth of the garage <br /> without encroaching on the loop driveway which <br /> serves the immediate neighborhood. <br /> 5. The revised garage proposal showed a roof peak running - <br /> east/west, which would discharge stormwater run-off to <br /> applicant's yard rather than the neighboring property. <br /> Page 2 of 9 <br />