My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 3432
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 3400 - 3499 (March 14, 1994 - November 28, 1994)
>
Resolution 3432
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2015 12:17:40 PM
Creation date
11/19/2015 12:17:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
z ; <br /> � ��' ITY of ORO � <br /> O : O C NO <br /> • � ��°��e�=� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> r� ���' '' �► � . <br /> ,� � �� �.b�,� �, N0. � � � <br /> �, ti <br /> ���� Og�G <br /> ESS <br /> A. The existing house location and scope of the proposed improvements does <br /> not allow moving the house to meet setback requirements. <br /> B. Existing vegetation screening and adequate distances to neighboring <br /> residence structures act to minimize any visual impact of the roof <br /> expansion. <br /> C. Applicant has removed a pre-existing deck and proposes to replace it with <br /> a new deck or bedroom addition. The submitted 1976 survey does not <br /> match the existing footprint. Absent further information, Planning <br /> Commission recommends that only the existing footprint be approved for <br /> roof expansion. <br /> 4. Applicant has now provided an updated survey confirming that the side setback <br /> to the proposed deck/bedroom expansion is 29.0', requiring a 1.0' or 3% side <br /> • setback variance. The hardship for granting of such variance is the location of <br /> the existing house, the fact that a deck previously existed in this location, and that <br /> whether this is a deck or room expansion, it is proposed to be roofed, and <br /> elimination of said roof portion would be incompatible with the proposed <br /> addition. <br /> 5. The City Council 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 on the health, safety and <br /> 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 property 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; would not merely <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 property <br /> right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the <br /> Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> • Page 2 of 5 <br /> Fam 5005 Disk Oram <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.