Laserfiche WebLink
, 1 i �. <br /> t <br /> O� <br /> � � <br /> O O <br /> � � CITY of OR4�T0 <br /> i <br /> F� :, .:�i.. �! <br /> � <br /> ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �l'q p4"'�'G N O. 4 � - <br /> kESII <br /> FIl��I�TG S <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#03-2877. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District,where 1 acre is the minimum <br /> required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.21 acres. <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Mazch 17, 2003 <br /> and recommended approval by a�-ote of 5 to 0. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> A. The existing residence was built in 1990,prior to the current zonin= <br /> ordinance; <br /> B. The 8,950 s.f. (0.21 acre) lot«-ith a�0' width does not meet the minimum lot <br /> area(43,560 s.f. or 1 acre) nor lot wldth(140')requirements for the district; <br /> C. There is no hardship to support the proposed 28.3' setback from the rear lot <br /> line. Therefore, the proposed addition must be located no closer than the <br /> required 30'setback from the street, further reducing hardcover and structural <br /> coverage on the property; <br /> D. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 374 s.f. (10.03%) to 337 <br /> s.f. (9.03%)where none is permitted in the 0 to 7�' hardcover zone by <br /> removina a shed, deck and brick patio; <br /> E. The application proposes to reduce hardcover from 3,508 s.f. (67.2%)to 3,396 <br /> s.£ (65.06%) where 1,305 s.f. (2�%) is permitted in the 75'to 2�0' hazdcover <br /> zone by removin�brick patio and reducing the main landing deck; <br /> F. The application proposes to rzduce structural coverage from 2,239 s.f. (35%) <br /> to 2,016 s.f. (22.53%) where 1,�00 s.f. is permitted by removina a deck, shed <br /> and by reducing the proposed overhan�s to an encroachment of no more than <br /> 1.75'; <br /> G. The side setbacks will remain 8.4' on the north side and increase from 5' to <br /> 6.5'on the south side with the application; <br /> H. There is no hardship demonstrated that would support the variances for the <br /> proposed decorative�vall encroachment, and allo��°in?it would decrease�views <br /> of the lake enjo5•ed by the neiahboring property o�vners. <br /> PaQe 2 of 6 <br />