Laserfiche WebLink
2. <br />3. <br />5. <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^03-2876. <br />The property is located in the 1-R-lC Zoning District, where 0.5 acres is the <br />minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.09 acres. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 17,2003 and <br />tabled the application in order for the applicant to provide elevations depicting the <br />height of the proposed structure. The Planning Commission heard the application for <br />the second time on .April 21,2003 and recommended app' jval by a vote of 7 to 0. <br />4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact; <br />A. The lot size and width are substandard for the zoning district; <br />B. The property contains an existing residence; <br />C. The majority of the lot is located within 75’ of the OH WL of Lake <br />Minnetonka. The required 30' setback from the rear lot line and 75’ setback <br />from the OllWL overlap, leaving no buildable area on the lot; <br />D. The 100' of Dakota Rail right of way on the rear of the property is not in use <br />as a rail corridor and is guided for a regional trail in the future. 1 herefore, a 5' <br />setback from the rear lot line, rather than the 10’ proposed, will not negatively <br />impact land owners to the south and will allow for a reduction of the proposed <br />encroachments of average setback and 75' setback; and <br />E. 1 he proposed house will encroach between 8'-l 1' into the average lakeshore <br />setback whereas the existing house encroaches 9’. The neighboring views of <br />the lake will not be greatly impacted by the proposed enert .Khment. <br />1 he City Council finds that the conditions existing on •'-.is 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is <br />necessary to preserv e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in <br />keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the <br />Citv. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />. (