Laserfiche WebLink
� � o� <br /> 0 0 <br /> � C ITY of ORONO <br /> �+ iry � <br /> � <br /> ti <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> ��`gkESI3.�4'�G NO. � � � �.� <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing <br /> held on May 16, 2005 and recominended approval of lot width and <br /> average lake setback variances based on the following findings: <br /> a. The property has 44,610 s.f. (1.02 acre) in lot area and 109' of lot <br /> width at the shoreline aiid 123' at the 75' setback. <br /> b. No additional land is available for acquisitioiZ by the applicants to <br /> make the property confornlin�in width. <br /> c. A lajoon exists on the neighboring property to the north which <br /> accounts for the home to the north to be set back considerably from the <br /> applicant's property, thus making an unnatural average lakeshore <br /> setback line. <br /> d. The applicant's property contains a long shared driveway serving 4 <br /> other residences. The driveway and hardcover are entirely on the <br /> applicant's property and the hardcover is applied toward the 75'-250' <br /> hardcover allowance. This shared driveway situation would not be <br /> allowed if the lots were subdivided today as an Outlot or a public road <br /> would be required for this type of shared access. This shared driveway <br /> configuration acts as a hardship that supports the 75' — 250' hardcover <br /> variance for this complete rebuild situation. <br /> e. The property is served with inunicipal sewer. <br /> f. The property is similar in size to many of the lots in this neighborhood. <br /> g. The average setback variance will have no impact on lalce views <br /> enjoyed by the neighboring property owners. <br /> 4. The City Council l�as considered this application including the findings <br /> and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br /> comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br /> variance on the health, safety and�velfare of tlie community. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br /> peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning <br /> district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic <br /> Pa�e 2 of 6 <br />