Laserfiche WebLink
3. <br />4. <br />5. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1996 and <br />recommended approval of the proposed variances on a vote of 7 to 0, based <br />upon the following findings: <br />A.The proposed fix>nt setback encroachment of 1.8' for a 23' wide portion <br />of the existing house has no significant visual impact in the <br />neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with street setbacks of other homes <br />in the neighborhood. <br />B.The proposal results in no increase in hardcover on the property, and all <br />extraneous hardcover on the property was removed previously when the <br />existing concrete and block porch area was expanded in 1990. <br />C.The lot is only 10,001 s.f. in area and is comparable in area to other <br />substandard lots in the neighborhood. The property would normally only <br />be allotted 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures including house and <br />garage. The additional 92 s.f of structure is a 0.9% increase to 27.7%. <br />The fact that neighboring houses on the east side of the street are quite <br />distant, results in minimal visual density impact on the neighborhood <br />caused by the proposed screen porch expansion. Further, there is no <br />existing structure on the property that could easily be removed to offset <br />the increased lot coverage caused by the addition. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br />by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. <br />The City Council finds that the 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 />~.er\e 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 would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 6