Laserfiche WebLink
� °� <br /> 0 0 � <br /> �b - CITY of ORONO � <br /> a � <br /> �� �'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �9kESH�4'� NO. � `� � � ^� <br /> 3. "The Orano Pia�uiing Ccnu�iissioiY revie�.ved tr�is applic�:t�on cn Nlarch :8, 1996, <br /> ari�: recornmend:,•d appro:�al of tii� proposed variaiices base�l u�oc� !l�� f:�llowing <br /> unique fin�ings a.i:d h��t�sl�ips: <br /> A. The deck is deteriarating and cannot be used by applic�infs in ils present <br /> condition. <br /> B. The deck will be replaced within the same footprint as the existing deck. <br /> C. In 1976 the applicants received variance a�proval for the existing deck <br /> that was to be ;ocated 2' closer to the lak� than the dec�: that was <br /> constructed. <br /> p, Har�co�;er within t.ie 0-75' �etback area �vill remairi at 4.0��% <br /> E, A lanc�sca_pe area u�lderla�n with plastic lccatec_l ���itYiiri �he County ri�ht- <br /> of-��ay shall be. rem�ved. Tl:is �vill result in ihe �emoval of <br /> approximately 660 s.f. of hardcover. <br /> F. In a 1988 variance application, applicants removed 146 s.f. of cement <br /> patio within the 0-75' setback zone. <br /> G. During heavy rainfalls the property receives major runoff from the <br /> developed properties to the north. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that tlie conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br /> granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br /> serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br /> property right of the applicants; and w�uld be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of tlie City. <br /> Page 2 of 7 <br />