Laserfiche WebLink
< <br /> �`�� ���"�� i o� ORONO <br /> ��` � C t� <br /> • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> _ _�� NO. 2622 <br /> • - • • _ <br /> >: <br /> FINDINGS . <br /> r <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1376. = <br /> 2. The current request to retain the existing detached garage in its - <br /> existing substandard location, which would necessitate retention or <br /> placement of hardcover in excess of the 29$ hardcover in the 75-250' : <br /> zone allowed per Orono Resolution #1936, was also the subject of <br /> previous application #1244, which was denied per Orono Resolution <br /> #2415, adopted April 25, 1988. The findings of f act appearing in - <br /> ' Resolutions #1936 and #2415 are incorporated herein by reference. <br /> 3. The applicants wish to retain the existing detached garage in its � <br /> substandard locatien less than 2' from the side lot line, and 4.7' �: <br /> from the street lot line where 10' setbacks are normally required. ' <br /> Furthermore, the current request is for 32.2� hardcover in the 75-250' ' <br /> zone where only 29$ was allowed in the original variance request per - <br /> • Resolution #1936. . <br /> 4. The Council finds that the applicants can develop a suitable and <br /> safe driveway access to the property within the conditions of approval - <br /> attached to the original variance granted per Resolution #1936. . <br /> Furthermore, the Council finds that the applicants had every <br /> opportunity in applying for the original variance app lication in 1986 <br /> to design the attached addition to accommodate their reasonably � <br /> anticipated storage needs on the property. � <br /> 5. The Council finds that the hardships and practical difficulties <br /> claimed by the applicants were created solely by the applicants own • <br /> doing, and are not a result of physical factors inherent with the <br /> property. <br /> 6. The Orono Planning Commission at their March 20, 1989 meeting ,: <br /> voted 4-0 to deny the requested variance, based on the following � <br /> findings: <br /> A) No reasonable hardship was shown. . <br /> B) There is no justification for approval of the variance given � <br /> the history of prier applications and the findings ; <br /> resulting from those applications. <br /> 7. The granting of the required variances would result in the . <br /> • following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3 (A) of the zoning <br /> code with which the app licants must first cemply before the requested <br /> variances could be granted: <br /> Page 2 of 4 - <br />