Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> ` O ' <br /> � •� <br /> O O . <br /> � '�� � CITY of ORONO <br /> ,� '� �- ti . <br /> �r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��L �Gti . <br /> `9kEsYI�g' . NO. � e�, a � . <br /> is required and side yard setbacks of not more than 20 feet on each side,permitting <br /> _ up to a 4 foot encroachment into either side yard for roof overhang but for no other <br /> � building elements, and requiring the removal of the existing shed in the 0-75' <br /> hardcover zone. <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> A. In 1993,the property owner cbmbined two 50' wide lots in order to create a <br /> lot that was closer to conformity with the lot area and width requirements of <br /> . the zoning district; <br /> B. The applicants were permitted to build a home on the combined lots in 1993 <br /> � �vith substandard side yard setbacks, lot area and lot width; _ , <br /> C. The combined lot is very long and narrow, creating difficult conditions to <br /> build a home that takes full advantage of the lakeshare; <br /> � D. The existing detached garage is currently located over the property line to the <br /> south and will be removed with tlus application; and � <br /> • E. An existing non-conforming shed, located in the 0-75' lakeshore setback <br /> zone, will be removed with this application and replaced with a lock box <br /> compliant with City size standards. <br /> 5. On March 10, 2003, the City Council heard the Planning Commission's <br /> recommendations regarding the application. At that time, the City Council was <br /> reluctant to agree with the hardships identified by the Planning Commission as they <br /> pertained to the proposed side yard setback variances. Therefore, the City Council <br /> tabled the application to allow the applicants to meet with staff to further discuss the <br /> proposal. <br /> 6. On Apri114,2003,the City Council heard the applicant's revised variance proposal <br /> which incorporated the Planning Commission's recommendation of 20' side yard <br /> setbacks,as opposed to the applicant's original proposal of 11' and 19.3' where 30' <br /> is required.The City Council�vas unable to identify a hazdship to permit substandard <br /> side yard setbacks for the proposed new construction. <br /> 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br /> and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;that granting the . <br /> variances will 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 convenience to <br /> the applicants,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br /> • Page 2 of 5 � <br />