Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> , ' �O <br /> � � <br /> • O O ' <br /> ��b. - CITY of ORONO <br /> ,� �, - <br /> ti <br /> �� G'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��sxo4`'� No. 4 � 2 g � <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning • <br /> - District where %z acre is the minimum lot size and 100' is the minimum lot <br /> width. <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 20, 2002 and <br /> � recommended approval on a vote of 7 to 0 for the variances based upon the <br /> following findings: <br /> . A. The Council adopted Resolution No. 4264 approving variances to permit <br /> an expansion of the existing house on April 12, 1999. <br /> B. The approvals granted within Resolution No. 4264 expired one year from <br /> � the date of adoption (April 12, 2000). <br /> C. The property owners hired a contractor to replace and repair the existing <br /> • roof of the structure. While repairing the roof, the existing roofline was <br /> expanded within the average lakeshore setback and within 75' of the <br /> lakeshore. Since the expansion occurred, an after-the-fact renewal was <br /> required to permit the property owners to proceed with the project. <br /> D. Staff informed the Planning Commission the City of Orono would have <br /> issued a building permit for this project if the expansion had occurred <br /> within one year of the variance approval. Normally the City� will issue <br /> a permit to do a project that has been modified when it is found the <br /> proposed building plan is of less impact than the approved plan. <br /> E. The expansion of the dormers will not raise the roof level of the house. <br /> The 1999 approved plans raised the roof level approximately 6.5'. <br /> F. The property conditions have not changed and there have been no code <br /> revisions since the adoption of the variances in 1999. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property aze peculiar <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br /> granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br /> • Page 2 of 5 <br />