My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
09-11-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 9:27:49 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 9:24:30 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.
/
283
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
IrP. <br />I <br />City of OROINO <br />- CITY - <br />-OF <br />DRONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 2923_ _ _ _ _ <br />A RESOLUTION GRANTING <br />VARIANCES TO <br />MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE <br />SECTION 10.42, SUBDIVISION 7 (G) AND <br />SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 10 (O) <br />PILE #1600 <br />WHEREAS, Richard Bloomquist (hereinafter ''the <br />aoplicant") has an interest in the property located at 3333 <br />Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City*) and <br />legally described as follows; <br />Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter "the property"); and <br />variance <br />i^cated^lO' from the west side lot line instead of the required <br />100'; and a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10. , <br />Subdii ’ision 10 (O) seeking approval of a total of 108 parking <br />stalls where based on the total net floor area, the expanded use <br />would require 134 stalls. <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R1.SOLVED by the City Council of <br />Orono, Minnesota: <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1600. <br />2. The orooerty is located in the B-3 Commercial Shopping <br />District and the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning <br />District. <br />3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application <br />findings: <br />A) A 30' w’ide utility easement divides the property in <br />half forcing applicant to either expand east or west. <br />A northward addition would not be allowed to encroach <br />over the utility easement. <br />B) The topography to the east prohibits feasible <br />expansion in light of the impact on adjacenw prope uy <br />and improvements on that property. <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />tl
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.