My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
01-09-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2025 10:23:04 AM
Creation date
3/10/2025 10:20:36 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.
/
550
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
B) There is not adequate area to build a house and meet the 75' <br />lakeshore setback requiremexitr the street and side yard setback, <br />and hardcover regulations. <br />C) The property has never been assessed for sewer or water. <br />D) The property was valued for tax purposes in the past at a <br />"educed amount to reflect the fact that these are substandard <br />xots and not appropriate for residential construction. <br />E) The lot is subject to flooding and is in the natural <br />drainageway to the lake for the surrounding watershed. Any <br />construction would be subject to periodic flooding. <br />F) The property is substandard in size in relationship to other <br />lots in the area upon which development has already been <br />completed. <br />G) The granting of a lot area variance for this property would <br />result in additional: traffic congestion, surface water drainage <br />problems, surface water pollution problems for Lake Minnetonka, <br />congestion in the area, diminishing value to the surrouding <br />properties, and par'll’" j problems in the area. <br />H) The applicants ha7e failed to demonstrate any hardship to <br />warrant the granting of the variance, as the granting of the <br />variance would be hazardous to the health, safety, and welfare of <br />the citizens of Orono. <br />I) The granting of the requested variances would be adverse to <br />the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code of the City. <br />• <br />19. The Planning Commission moved on the second phase of the <br />application voting to recommend against the use of the residential <br />dock based on the following findings: <br />A) The lack of the principal structure means that there is no <br />individual responsible for protecting the dock nor the <br />boats maintained at that dock. <br />B) An adjacent neighbor already has a dock located on Tract F. <br />C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking <br />that would meet the required setback of 75* from the channel area <br />nor the required 30 feet setback from the strf»et lot line. The <br />County Highway Department also does not allow j ‘’■king along this <br />section of the County road. <br />Page 5 of 7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.