Laserfiche WebLink
3.The Planning Commission reviewed the anplication 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 />n. <br />c. <br />E. <br />F. <br />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 comer 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 />The area of the w etland 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 />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 />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 />till and structures. <br />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. 1 he 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 aftect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other <br />danger to neightoring 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