Laserfiche WebLink
O O <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> H04NO. 4 6 6 1 <br /> \ S <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 2001 and <br /> recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 0 for variances based upon the <br /> following findings and hardships: <br /> A. The proposed dormer window expansion would not increase the use of <br /> the property, nor have an impact on the views from adjacent residences. <br /> The house was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning <br /> ordinance. <br /> B. The previous deck was removed from the garage by the applicant to <br /> allow replacement of the roof below the deck. <br /> C. The deck railing would be replaced to a similar character and style as the <br /> deck that was voluntarily removed by the applicant. <br /> D. The garage is built into a hillside. Access to the deck is even with the <br /> grade located to the rear of the garage. No stairs are required to the roof <br /> of the garage. The railing would be required for safety since access to <br /> the roof is not restricted. The variance would allow a deck and railing <br /> to be located 2' from the street property line and 6' from the side lot line. <br /> No expansion to the previous use of the structure is proposed. The <br /> garage was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning <br /> ordinance and is a legal non-conforming structure that has not reached <br /> the end of its useful life. The hill side and size of the lot would make <br /> construction of a new garage further from the street difficult. <br /> E. In the early 1980s the Council approved a variance to permit the garage <br /> to be refurbished in its existing location. Two primary conditions were <br /> placed on that approval. One, the garage would have to be reduced in <br /> size and cut back to meet a 2' setback to the street, and secondly, the <br /> garage would have to be rebuilt with a flat roof to not block the view of <br /> the lake from the neighboring residence. Those conditions were carried <br /> out. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are 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 4 <br />