Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />NO. ________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota <br />hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the <br />following findings of fact concerning the Property: <br /> <br />FINDINGS OF FACT: <br /> <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000012. The analysis contained <br />within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the <br />above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings <br />are hereby incorporated by reference. <br /> <br />2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. <br /> <br />3. The Property contains 0.26 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 51 feet. <br /> <br />4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater <br />Quality Overlay District. The existing conditions on the property has 39% hardcover with <br />no proposed changes. <br /> <br />5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: <br />a. Side yard setback <br />b. 75 foot lakeyard setback <br />c. Average lakeshore setback <br /> <br />6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and <br />recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance <br />upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic <br />conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values <br />of property in the surrounding area. <br /> <br />ANALYSIS: <br /> <br />1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The <br />proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small <br />lot includes difficulties in lake frontage, small size, and width. The additions meant <br />to be within existing improved areas. <br />2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to <br />improve this nonconforming lot are consistent with the comprehensive plan <br />3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. <br />a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not <br />permitted by the official controls; The request for a 2nd story addition to the