My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-09-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
09-09-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 12:28:35 PM
Creation date
9/5/2023 12:25:41 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.
/
334
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
4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />8. <br />F. The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required <br />15' street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. <br />to keep it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject <br />to much stricter setback standards. <br />The applicant has revised the proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback <br />variance for construction of two additional garage stalls, and has provided plans <br />showing the footprint of that garage to be less than 1,000 s.f. in order that the <br />garage be a conforming structure. <br />The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocution and finds the <br />driveway configuration feasible but indicates additional design work and/or <br />agreements with the neighboring property owner are necessary and must be <br />completed prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed improvements <br />to the property. <br />The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer <br />on the property and has indicated that the proposed improvements will not <br />hinder sewer development, but has indicated that certain sewer easements may <br />be required. <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 applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br />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 p-'r . rally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the variance w<vj ’;,( : .adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 3 of 8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.