Laserfiche WebLink
3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 19, 1998 <br />and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. <br />4.The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: <br />A.The average lakeshore setback variance is an after-the-fact situation. <br />Most of the footings and support beams have been completed. <br />B.The addition would increase total hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore <br />setback. This portion of the lot is small in relation to the entire lot. <br />C.There is a one-stall garage that was damaged by a storm in late spring, <br />and subsequently removed. The property owner may intend to replace <br />the garage in the same lo:ation, or construct an addition to the home. <br />D.The proposed development is consistent with the development in the <br />locality. <br />5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br />to it and do not apply general.^ to other property in this zoning district; that <br />granting ihe variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely <br />serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy to alleviate a <br />demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br />propertv light of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br />intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br />6.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br />recommep.Jaiions of the Planning Commission, reports by City stall, comments <br />by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety <br />and welfare of the community. <br />CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS <br />Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby <br />grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) <br />Page 2 of 4