Laserfiche WebLink
rw^ <br />3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 17, 2000 and <br />recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. <br />4.The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />A.The structural coverage on the lot will increase slightly, but still well below <br />what is allowed. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />The addition within the side yard setback will not adversely affect the <br />neighboring property. <br />The addition will be in the same location as the existing part of the house that <br />is being removed. <br />The south side of the residence is currently located 27.5' from the side lot line <br />where 50' is required. The addition will encroach 3.3' further into the side <br />setback. <br />5. <br />6. <br />E.The residence was built prior to adoption of current zoning standards. <br />F.The lot is extremely undersized and ntirrow for the RR-1A zoning district. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to <br />it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting <br />the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire <br />hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br />or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; <br />and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br />Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by <br />the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />welfare of the community. <br />Page 2 of 6