Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> 1110 <br /> ���� No. 7371 <br /> ESuO <br /> 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25%according to the Stormwater Quality <br /> Overlay District. <br /> 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: <br /> a. Average Lakeshore Setback <br /> 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and <br /> recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the <br /> health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and <br /> air,danger of fire,risk to the public safety,and the effect on values of property in the surrounding <br /> area. <br /> ANALYSIS: <br /> 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent <br /> of the ordinance . . . ." The average lakeshore setback variance is required for the expansion of a <br /> lakeside deck. The neighboring properties to the north and south are positioned in a way that the <br /> existing deck and the proposed expansion does not impact views of the lake. The requested <br /> expansion of approximately 205 square feet is minimal,does not impact lake views, and increases <br /> enjoyment of the subject property. This criterion is met. <br /> 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive <br /> plan." The variance resulting in an expanded lakeside deck for a residential use is consistent with <br /> the comprehensive plan. There have been instances when the City has granted variances from <br /> average lakeshore setback when the proposal does not disrupt neighboring views of the lake and is <br /> not within the 75-foot setback. The proposed deck expansion is not likely to impact any lake views <br /> and is not within the 75-foot setback. This criterion is met. <br /> 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical <br /> difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with <br /> the granting of a variance,means that: <br /> a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, <br /> however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. <br /> The existing deck was constructed prior to the City's current regulations.The current deck <br /> is nonconforming and within the average lakeshore setback. The expansion of the deck <br /> increases the use and enjoyment of the lake property and is a reasonable request. The <br /> proposal preserves the intent of the ordinance by not disrupting any neighboring lake <br /> views. This criterion is met. <br /> 2 <br />