Laserfiche WebLink
� ' <br /> ' O . <br /> � � <br /> O ��,� O 1 <br /> ������� � � CITY of ORONO <br /> � �� ��;� �I <br /> `�'+� � �Y .�,e�;� �'Il <br /> G�' ! RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �'�`q ''`'`�``��,g.�, 2 9 3 5 <br /> kESS� N�. <br /> Existing Structural = 2,507 s.f. or 14.9$ <br /> Existing Non-structural = 2,694.2 s.f. or 16.1$ <br /> 4. The current app lication involves the request for an <br /> increase of structural hardcover at 299.2 s.f. or 1.79$. <br /> � Applicant proposes the removal of 376.2 s.f. or 2.25$ of <br /> non-structural hardcover resulting in a net reduction of <br /> 1.1$ hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. <br /> 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application <br /> on February 19, 1991, and recommended approval of the after- <br /> the-fact variance based upon the following findings: <br /> A) The reconstructed deck meets all the required <br /> setbacks. It does not restrict the lake views of the <br /> adjacent residences, nor does it encroach the average <br /> lakeshore setback line. <br /> B) The second level lakeside deck provides a secondary <br /> means of egress from the split level residence. <br /> C) The proposed improvement will not result in an <br /> increase of hardcover within the 75-250' setback area <br /> as applicant must remove an equal amount of non- <br /> structural hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. <br /> The Planning Commission denied the request for the 4'x48' <br /> second story deck along the east side of the residence <br /> finding that applicant had not provided acceptable hardships <br /> to support approval of the additional variance. <br /> 6. The City Counci 1 f inds that the conditions existing on <br /> this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally <br /> to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br /> variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, <br /> light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to <br /> neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate <br /> a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to <br /> preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and <br /> would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning <br /> Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />