Laserfiche WebLink
7.4?,, <br /> O <br /> ,a <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> �' l� 41/ <br /> '`1 �G RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. <br /> �EsK� 474 <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended <br /> approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: <br /> A. The property met all code requirements in 1991 and was considered a <br /> buildable lot at that time. The new wetland boundary as determined by <br /> Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc., Golden Valley, Minnesota, shows a larger <br /> wetland basin than what was thought to be located on the property. <br /> B. The larger wetland basin causes two development issues for the property <br /> owners. The wetland basin's size has limited the building envelope to a <br /> small corner of the property. The area available to develop is then <br /> substantially reduced by the required 35'setback to the back property line and <br /> side yard setback. <br /> C. The area of the wetland is larger than first believed,the actual area of the lot <br /> is reduced in size to less than one acre. The City of Orono did find in 1991 <br /> that the area of the property was 1 acre. The change to the wetland <br /> determination method has changed the defined lot area of the property,as has <br /> the ability to credit wetland as buildable area. The defined lot area is now <br /> approximately 0.8 acre. <br /> D. The location of the sewer service 10' from the south property line shifts the <br /> building location an additional 10' to the north, which causes the wetland <br /> buffer impact. <br /> E. The property owners have identified areas on the property to mitigate a total <br /> of 2,180 s.f.of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to <br /> fill and structures. <br /> F. The 17.76' setback to the street property line is justified by the fact the <br /> wetland area restricts any development further north and east on the property. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and <br /> do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;that granting the variances <br /> will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other <br /> danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the <br /> applicants,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty;is necessary <br /> to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with <br /> the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />