Laserfiche WebLink
�\ City of ORONO <br /> CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> OF NO. 2898 <br /> ORONO <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this <br /> application o August 20 , 1990 and on a vote of 4-1 <br /> recommended de' ial of the hardcover and side setback <br /> variances, fi ding 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 rev se their request to omit the need for a side <br /> setback varianc-. The Council referred the matter back to <br /> the Planning Co ission. <br /> 4. The Orono • lanning Commission reviewed the revised <br /> application on October 19, 1990 and recommended approval of <br /> the revised v - riance request based upon the following <br /> findings: <br /> A) Applic= nts have agreed to remove all portions of <br /> the deck 1=ss than 10' from the side lot line, thereby <br /> eliminatin• the need for a side setback variance. <br /> B) Applica ts further proposed to replace the rock and <br /> plastic o the north side of the house with grass, <br /> yielding a final 75-250' hardcover of 49.9%, below the <br /> currently :xisting 57.3% and below the 54.7% hardcover <br /> that existe• before the new deck was constructed. <br /> C) Retenti.n of the portions of deck encroaching past <br /> the defined; average lakeshore setback line will not <br /> have any ' mpact on existing lake views enjoyed by <br /> neighboring property owners. <br /> 4 . The City C •uncil has considered this application <br /> including the f ndings and recommendations of the Planning <br /> Commission, r : ports by City staff , comments by the <br /> applicants and .he effect of the proposed variances on the <br /> health, safety a d welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City Cou ci 1 finds that the conditions existing on <br /> this property ar peculiar to it and do not apply generally <br /> to other propert 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 p operty; would not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicants , but is necessary to <br /> alleviate a d monstrable hardship or difficulty ; is <br /> necessary to pr serve a substantial property right of the <br /> applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Z ning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br /> City. <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />