Laserfiche WebLink
; �� � <br /> . � O� <br /> O O <br /> � '� � A- C ITY of ORON� <br /> � 3 '':3.ti. Y7 . <br /> �.. � <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiL <br /> ��L �Gti <br /> � �kES8�4 NO. . � � � � <br /> FINDINGS. <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#03-2884. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District,where 1 acre is the minimum <br /> required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.48 acres. <br /> 3. �The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 21, 2003 <br /> and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 1. � <br /> 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br /> ' A. The deck has existed in this location since 1972; <br /> B. The neighbor's views of the lake are not greatly affected by the location of the ' <br /> - � deck; <br /> � C. The deck will not change the structural setback from the OHWL of Lake � <br /> • Minnetonka or the average lakeshore setback; � . <br /> D. Expansion of the deck as proposed, filling in the"U" shaped area,would <br /> increase structural coverage and hardcover on the property. The applicant has <br /> stated that the expansion can be configured so that it will not increase <br /> hardcover. However, structural coverage will still increase; and <br /> E. Instead of filling in the "U" shaped area,the deck could be reconfigured to <br /> avoid an increase structural coverage on the lot. A new deck may be up to 482 <br /> s.f. in size (or 83 s.f. larger than it currently exists) and still meet the ' <br /> � maximum structural coverage (3,157 s.f. or 15% of the lot area) allowed on <br /> the lot. � <br /> � 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it <br /> and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br /> variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions,light,air,nor pose a fire hazard <br /> or other danger to neighboring property;would not merely serve as a convenience to <br /> the applicants,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br /> necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in <br /> , keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br /> City. <br /> 6. The City Council has considered this application, including the findings and <br /> • Page 2 of 5 <br />