My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-22-2001 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2001
>
10-22-2001 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 3:26:11 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 3:21:32 PM
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.
/
523
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
3. <br />5. <br />approximately 0.52 aca*s(0.SI acre dry buildable). <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 15.2001 and <br />reconmiendcd approval by a vote of 7 to 0. <br />The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />A.The property consists of three lots legally combined and extremely <br />undersized for the RR-IB zoning district, but similar in size to nearby <br />developed lots in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood. <br />B.The adjacent properties are developed, therefore there is not any additional <br />land available to met* the zoning requirements. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />The steep topography of the lot mokes placement of the residence dilVicult. <br />forcing it into the north half of the lot. <br />'I'he proposed residence does meet City ordinance standards for structural lot <br />coverage. <br />The proposed residence di>es meet city ordinance requirements for hardcover <br />in the 500-1000 ’ setback zone. <br />Driveway access will be approved by the Public Serv ices Director. <br />The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to <br />it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting <br />the variance will not adversely aflect tralTic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fire <br />hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a <br />convenience to the applicants, but is necessary ’ to alleviate a demonstrable hardship <br />or dilTiculty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; <br />and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br />Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by <br />Page 2 of 8
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.