Laserfiche WebLink
, , <br /> � O� <br /> - O O <br /> • �� g CITY of ORONO <br /> a .. � <br /> ti <br /> ��� �G�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �kEsH.Og' N0. p� � ,� � <br /> 5. The Planning Commission reviewed the final revised plan at a public hearing held <br /> on September 15, 2003 and on a vote of 6-1 recommended approval of the revised <br /> proposal based on the following findings or conditions: <br /> a) The proposed partial enclosure of the existing upper level deck to create living <br /> space will not create additional hardcover and will not have any ixnpacts on <br /> views of the lake enj oyed by neighboring property owners,hence the average <br /> setback variance should be granted. <br /> b) The proposed partial enclosure of the front entryway, and other primarily <br /> cosmetic revisions to the house, will not create additional �ardcover and <br /> require no variances. <br /> c) The property is out of compliance with the hardcover limits e�tablished for <br /> this property in 1995 via Resolution No. 3578,apparently be-;,ause the prior <br /> � owner did not remove portions of driveway that were to be r�moved. The <br /> • current property owner as a result of the currently requested improvements <br /> should be required to return the property to the 1995 approved bardcover level <br /> of 4,910 s.f. in the 75-250'zone: <br /> d) The applicants have depicted on a site plan the areas of hardco�-er they would <br /> remove in order to comply with the 1995 limitation. <br /> 6. The City Council has considered this application includin� the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City sta� conunents by <br /> the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, <br /> safety and welfare of the community. <br /> 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property�_�peculiar to it <br /> and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;th.at�anting the <br /> variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions,light,air nor pose a fire hazard <br /> or other danger to neighboring property;would not merely serve as a caanvenience to <br /> the applicants,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship ar difficu�ty; is <br /> necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; a�d�uould be in <br /> keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehe��i�-e Plan of the <br /> City. <br /> � Page 2 of 5 <br /> � <br />