Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />3. The porch encroaches 6.5’ ahead of the average lakeshore setback where no <br />encroachment is allowed. <br />4. The porch increases the percentage of structural coverage on the lot to 16.4% <br />where 15% is allowed. <br />5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 17, 1998 <br />and recommended denial of the proposed variances based upon the following <br />findings: <br />1. Adequate hardship has not been demonstrated by the applicant. <br />2. Allowing the screen porch to remain and be completed may have a <br />negative impact on views. <br />3. The porch was constructed over an existing deck. If the necessary <br />variances were approved, significant retrofitting of the structure would <br />have to take place to bring the structure into compliance with city code. <br />4. While not enclosed with a solid roof or windows, the porch is considered <br />structure. <br />6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are not <br />peculiar to it and apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting the variances would merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, it <br />is not necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; it is not <br />necessary to preserv e a substantial property right of the applicant; and w'ould not <br />be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive <br />Plan of the City. <br />7. 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 />Page 2 of 3