Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. 7272 <br /> <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />2. The Property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District. <br /> <br />3. The Property contains 1.86 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 230 feet at the <br />OHWL. <br /> <br />4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater <br />Quality Overlay District. <br /> <br />5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: <br /> <br />6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br />upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br />of property in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. <br />The proposed variances are in harmony with the intent and purpose of the <br />Ordinance. The goal of the ordinance is to reduce or eliminate improvements in the <br />lake yard, the proposal shifts away from the lake yard as much as practical. This <br />criterion is met. The new entrance monuments are not in harmony with the <br />ordinance to prevent improvements within the wetland and lakeyard setback; this <br />criterion is not met. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to <br />develop a nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br />permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the <br />home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the lake, and <br />side yard setbacks, appears to be reasonable considering the Property’s <br />reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore. The hardcover <br />and retaining walls proposed within the lake yard appear to be reasonable. <br />a) Hardcover in the 75’ lakeyard <br />b) Buildings in the 75’ lakeyard <br />c) Retaining walls in the 75’ lakeyard <br />d) Side yard setback <br />e) Lot area <br />f) Wetland setback