My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-27-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
05-27-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:13:29 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 9:15:08 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
296
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
requires minimum lot area of 1.0 acres and minimum lot width of 140'. The lot <br />contains 0.86 acres in area, meeting the 80% rule of Section 10.03, Subd. 6(AK1), <br />for existing lots of record, but is only 105* in width at the rear of the front yard, not <br />meeting the 80% rule noted above. <br />3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br />May 19, 2003 and recommended approval of the lot width variance based on the <br />following findings; <br />a) The property contained an existing residence structure and detached garage, <br />which have been recently removed by the applicant in order to construct a new <br />residence on the property. <br />b) The property is provided with municipal sewer. <br />c) The lot area of 0.86 acres is sufficient to allow reconstruction on the site, <br />where a residence has previously existed for many years, without the need for <br />further variances. <br />d) There is no land available for acquisition by the applicant to bring the lot into <br />conformity. <br />4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br />the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, <br />safety and welfare of the community. <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 />variance would 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 preserve 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 />City. <br />Page 2 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.