My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-11-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
03-11-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2024 2:47:22 PM
Creation date
5/24/2024 2:42:35 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.
/
531
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
r <br />Zoning File #1497 <br />March 15, 1990 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />The Planning Commission is asked to review the City <br />Attorney's memo that outlines the options of action available to <br />the City regarding this current renewal conditional use permit <br />for the continuation of a non-conforming use. Please note, if <br />it is the Planning Commission's intent to approve a conditional <br />use permit, the City Attorney would ask to further research <br />Minnesota case law and other cases from other jurisdictions to <br />determine how they have dealt with granting variances to non- <br />conforming use standards of the Zoning Code. <br />If Planning Commission recommends denial based on your <br />responses to the pertinent sections of the code and City <br />Attorney's memorandum staff would ask that your denial of the <br />variance be based on the findings in Section lO.O0r Subdivision 3 <br />(A), and that you provide further directions to Council <br />concerning the granting of reasonable variances for the <br />(javelopment of a single family residen^-e on the site. <br />A) The property consists of 11,406 s.f. in area and is <br />served by sewer but subject to 2 acre setback standards. <br />Would the Planning Commission recommend approval of setback <br />variances for a single family residence . . . duplex? <br />B) Would this property developed as a single family <br />residence, be consistent with the surrounding pattern of <br />residential development within the neighborhood? (refer to <br />Exhibit H) <br />C) What other reasonable uses could be made of this <br />property? The applicant owns che land to the immediate east <br />• 1950 Shoreline Drive. <br />Per the directives of the City Attorney's memorandum, it <br />will bo necessary to have the City Assessor provide a valuation <br />of the property if it is to return to a residential use. If the <br />Planning Commission finds that the property is not suitable for <br />residential development and no economic use of the property is <br />possible, the issue of a "teiking" must be addressed by the City. <br />Please feel free to contact my office prior to the meeting <br />if you have any questions concerning the issues raised in the <br />City Attorney's memo or in the City staff memo.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.