Laserfiche WebLink
Hardcover existing on the property prior to construction of <br />the new deck was calculated by City staff at 5,638 s.f. or <br />54.7% of the 75-250' zone, where only 2,577 s.f. or 25% <br />hardcover would normally be allowed. The additional deck <br />area constructed in 1988 increased the 75-250' zone <br />hardcover to 57.3% (5,910 s.f.). Both the pre-existing and <br />post construction hardcover in the 75-250' zone greatly <br />exceeds the hardcover limitations imposed by Section 10.22, <br />Subdivision 2. <br />7. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 <br />(B) requires maintenance of a 10' side yard adjacent to <br />another lot. The deck constructed in 1988 is sufficiently <br />elevated above grade so as to require a railing, and <br />therefore that deck is considered an encroachment into the <br />required side yard. In fact, the Certificate of Survey <br />provided by the applicant indicates that the deck is <br />constructed across the lot line onto the neighboring <br />property. <br />8. At their regular meeting of August 20, 1990, the Orono <br />Planning Commission reviewed the request for after-the-fact <br />variances to allow the offending deck structure to remain, <br />and on a vote of 4 in favor, 1 against, recommended denial <br />of variances for hardcover, side setback, and average <br />setback, finding that no hardship was given to justify the <br />excessive hardcover associated with the deck additions, and <br />no reasonable justification was provided for the granting of <br />a side setback variance. The Planning Commission <br />recommended that the decks be cut back to the pre-existing <br />18' X 13' dimensions. The minority opinion was that <br />required deck removals should not be that extensive. <br />9. At their regular meeting of September 24, 1990, the City <br />Council of the City of Orono voted 4 in favor, 0 against, to <br />conceptually deny the requested after-the-fact variances <br />per the recommendation of the Planning Commission and <br />directed City staff to prepare a resolution of denial. <br />10. The City Council finds that the applicant has not <br />demonstrated that strict enforcement of the literal <br />provisions of the Zoning Code would cause undue hardship <br />because of circumstances unique to the property, as follows; <br />Page 3 of 7