Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />i ' . ~ ·,., t-[ ~ <br />. ~/ ·. • • RESOLU:l~_N O~T~E~;y COUNCIL <br />. . 3. The Orono Planning Commissi;n reviewed this applic~tion on May 18, J~e 15 <br />and July 20, 1998 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval of a hardcover <br />variance to allow hardcover on the property in the amount of 5,725 s.f. per the <br />revised plans, and approval of a CUP for grading \\ithin the 0-75' lakeshore <br />protected zones, based upon findings which are enumerated in Resolution No. <br />4128 dated July 27, 1998. <br />4. On July 27, 1998 the City Council granted approval of the proposed variances <br />and adopted Resolution No. 4128 with conditions. On August 10, 1998 the <br />applicant requested Council approval for a revised plan which would reduce··the <br />hardcover associated \vith the house· and driveway footprints in order to allow <br />.,'.' ·the addition of a patio while not exceeding the 5,725 s.f. hardcover level. The <br />further revised plan eliminates the third upper level garage stall and reduces the <br />area of driveway to free up additional hardcover for the patio. A lower level <br />storage area will be incorporated below the garage, but will not be served by a <br />driveway or other hardcover. The Council voted 4-0 to reconsider the application <br />and voted 4-0 to allow the further revision as proposed subject to still pieeting. <br />the 5,725 s.f. hardcover limit; that no driveway will be allo,ved to serve the <br />lower storage area; and that no future variances are to be granted for this <br />property. Council directed that staff bring a new resolution to the next <br />Council meeting for adoption. <br />5. The City Cou_ncil 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 and CUP on the health, <br />safety and welfare of the community. <br />6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property. are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply generally to other p_roperty 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; \Vould not mereiy <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 \vith the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />Page 2 of 6