Laserfiche WebLink
,J <br /> ;�:-c�:::A_ C�t� o� ORONO <br /> • � , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � ' NO. �a sz <br /> • - • • <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this <br /> application on August 20 , 1990 and on a vote of 4-1 <br /> recommended denial of the hardcover and side setback <br /> variances, finding no justification for approval. On <br /> September 24 , 1990 , the City Council reviewed the <br /> application and voted 4-0 to conceptually deny the request. <br /> At the Council meeting of October 8, 1990, the applicants <br /> proposed to revise their request to omit the need for a side <br /> setback variance. The Council referred the matter back to <br /> the Planning Commission. <br /> 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed the revised <br /> application on October 19, 1990 and recommended approval of <br /> the revised variance request based upon the following <br /> findings: <br /> A) Applicants have agreed to remove all portions of <br /> the deck less than 10' from the side lot line, thereby <br /> eliminating the need for a side setback variance. <br /> • B) Applicants further proposed to replace the rock and <br /> plastic on the north side of the house with grass, <br /> � yielding a final 75-250' hardcover of 49.9�, below the <br /> currently. existing 57.3� and below the 54.7� hardcover <br /> that existed before the new deck was constructed. <br /> C) Retention of the portions of deck encroaching past <br /> the defined average lakeshore setback line will not <br /> have any impact on existing lake views enjoyed by <br /> neighboring property owners. . <br /> 4 . The City Council has considered this application <br /> including the findings and recommendations of the Planning <br /> Commission , reports by City staff , comments by the <br /> applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the <br /> health, safety and welfare of the cominunity. <br /> 5. The City Council f'inds that the conditions existing on <br /> this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally <br /> to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br /> variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, <br /> light , air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to <br /> neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicants , but is necessary to <br /> alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty ; is <br /> • necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the <br /> applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br /> City. <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />