Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
� ��' CITY of ORONO <br /> Q .,� O <br /> �:��,-�, RESOLUTION UF 'THE CITY COLTNCIL <br /> ,� ��'� � � No. 3479 <br /> � :��� <br /> \ Y .L'� ` <br /> ' a 7 <br /> t���xE o¢�G <br /> 3II <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 continues the same setback as the existing house, and <br /> the additional encroachment will have no impact on the neighboring <br /> property. <br /> B, The proposed deck and railing would tend to decrease what already is an <br /> extremely small rear yard and add to the intensity of development in the <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 fmds 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 conditio�uldgnot merely <br /> pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; <br /> serve as a convenience to the applicant, bu�t T�erve a bstantiallproperty <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 /> Zoni.ng Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br /> ro�saos au c <br />