Laserfiche WebLink
. � <br /> � r <br /> � O� <br /> • O O <br /> b. - CITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> ��L ��'� RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � �kESH04 NO. � "� 3 `� <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1996 and <br /> recommended approval of the proposed variances on a vote of 7 to 0, based <br /> upon the following findings: <br /> A. The proposecl front setback encroachment of 1.8' for a 23' wide portion <br /> , of the existing house has no significant visual impact in the <br /> neighborhood, and is not inconsistent with street setbacks of other homes <br /> in the neighborhood. � , <br /> B. The proposal results in no increase in hardcover on the property, and all <br /> extraneous hardcover on the property was removed previously when the <br /> existing concrete and block porch area was expanded in 1990. <br /> • C. The lot is only 10,001 s.f. in area and is comparable in area to other <br /> substandard lots in the neighborhood. The property would normally only <br /> be allotted 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures including house and <br /> garage. The additional 92 s.f. of structure is a 0.9% increase to 27.7%. <br /> The fact that neighboring houses on the east side of the street are quite <br /> distant, results in minimal visual density impact on the neighborhood <br /> caused by the proposed screen porch expansion. Further, there is no <br /> existing structure on the property that could easily be removed to offset <br /> the increased lot coverage caused by the addition. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br /> and welfare of the community. , <br /> 5. The Ci Council fmds that the conditions existing on this properly are peculiar '! <br /> t3' � <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other properry 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 applicants, but is necessary to� alleviate a ', <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial , <br /> property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> • intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. ' <br /> � <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />