My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-08-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
03-08-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 10:28:38 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 2:13:53 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
468
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The Planning Conunission reviewed this application at public hearings <br />held on November 17, 2003 and recommended approval of the variance <br />based on the following findings: <br />a. Within the 75’-250’ setback, the applicants propose the removal of <br />296 s.f of concrete sidewalk, and 90.6 s.f. of bituminous drive in order <br />to reduce their hardcover amount in this zone from 65.1% to 59.9%. <br />b. Within the 0>75* setback, the applicants propose the removal of 72 s.f. <br />of deck hardcover. <br />c. The applicants will remove the carport, consisting of 357 s.f. of <br />structural coverage, but leave the hard surface below the carport as an <br />accessory parking stall. <br />d. The small size of the lot is a hardship that supports the level of 59.9% <br />hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone, given the existing developed <br />status of the property and the need for off-street parking due to the <br />high traffic on Shadywood Road. <br />e. The second-story expansion in the substandard side setback will have <br />no negative impacts on neighboring properties. <br />f. The deck reconstruction in the substandard side setback will have no <br />negative impacts on neighboring properties. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br />and reconunendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br />comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br />variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br />peculiar to it and do not ^ply generally to other property in this zoning <br />district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic <br />conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring <br />property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />necessary to alleviate a demonstrable Iiardship or difficulty; is necessary to <br />preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive <br />Plan of the City. <br />CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS <br />Page 2 ofS <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.