My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 3479
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 3400 - 3499 (March 14, 1994 - November 28, 1994)
>
Resolution 3479
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2017 1:14:46 PM
Creation date
5/9/2017 1:14:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
View images
View plain text
� ��' CITY of ORONO <br /> O .:.. 4 <br /> �' � RESOLUTION OF 'I`I� CITY COUNCIL <br /> :��^� ,� <br /> ,� ��'� �, � No. 3 4 7 9 <br /> � '�� ti <br /> . <br /> ��� <br /> ��9kE �I�g�G <br /> S <br /> be approved at 6', that the structure-to-structure setback be held to a minimum <br /> of 7' by reducing the addition to 12'x14', that the deck not be approved but a <br /> stoop and steps be approved, and that the variance for lot coverage be allowed in <br /> light of the 1,500 s.f. allowance for small lots. Planning Commission based the <br /> above recommendation upon the following findings: <br /> p. The 6' side setback o Ct�ent t willa have noc impacte on I the g ei�hboring <br /> the additional enc <br /> property. <br /> B. The proposed dec ea nda d and add 1 o tthe intenseiTy of development in the <br /> extremely small r y <br /> area. <br /> � C. The 7' structure-to-structure setback yields a more open visual impact and <br /> thereby has minimal impact on visual density in the neighborhood. <br /> D. Lot coverage as proposed is acceptable considering the small size of the <br /> lot and the fact that lot coverage will be less than the 1,500 s.f. limit for <br /> small lots. The lot is .15 acres in area and 50' in width, similar to a <br /> majority of lots in the area. The proposed improvements are not <br /> inconsistent with the Navarre Heights area. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings 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 /> 5, 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, bu�t I� �eea substantialiproperty <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary P <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 6 <br /> ��,e saos au, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.