My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-10-1994 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1994
>
10-10-1994 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2023 11:39:22 AM
Creation date
12/11/2023 11:35:36 AM
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.
/
337
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
|| IlP I -W,'.TH»»»VtT=Tr^ P :;;iii^I <br />'■a <br />4 <br />5. <br />be approved at 6\ that the itnictiire-lo-stnictitte letback be held tt> a minimum <br />of T by rediKov the addkioQ lo 12’xl4\ that the deck not be approved but a <br />sKMp ani saepe be approved, and that the variance for lot coverage be allowed in <br />tigiK of the 1,500 i.f. aHowancc for small lots. Planning Commissioii based the <br />^wve recofnmendatkm upon the foUowing findings: <br />B <br />C. <br />Ihe 6* side setback continues the same setback as the exisling hou». ^ <br />the addkkmal encroachmem wUl have no unfMici oii the neighborii^ <br />property. <br />The proposed deck and railii^ tend to decrease what already is an <br />exsemely small rear yird and add »the intensity of development in the <br />area. <br />The T souciiare-io-stnicture sednek yields a more open vmHd u^MCt and <br />thereby has minimal impact on viaul deoshy ui the neigT <br />D. Lot coverage as proposed is acceptable considering the small size the <br />lot and the fiKt tbai lot coverage will he less than die 1,500 s.f. limit for <br />small lots. The lot b .15 acres in area and 50* in width, similar to a <br />majority of lote in the area. The proposed improvaneiits are not <br />inconsistent with the Navarre Heights area. <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 comnninity. <br />TTie City Council finds that the conditions exbting on this property arc peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other property in thb 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 />serve as a convenience to the applicant, but b necessary to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; b necessary to preserve a substantial property <br />right of the appUcant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br />Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.