Laserfiche WebLink
� O� � <br /> , � � <br /> O � <br /> • �_ � CITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> ti <br /> �'� G�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kEsl�Og'� � NO. �� � ��� . <br /> FINDINGS � <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#04-3026. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR-1B, Zoning District which requires a <br /> minimum lot area of 1 acre and a minimum lot width of 140' at the shore <br /> and 75' setback. The applicants' lot is 3.6 acres in area and 390'f in <br /> width at the shore and 75' setback. <br /> 3. The Planning Commissioii reviewed this application at a public hearing <br /> held on July 19, 2004 and recommended approval of variances based on <br /> the following findings: <br /> a. Over half of the existing home is located within 75' of the OHWL of <br /> Lake Minnetonka. <br /> • . b. Approximately 6% of the total stnzcture and hardcover on the property <br /> is within the 30' bluff impact zone. <br /> c. Per Resolution No. 3191, approved in 1992, the property was granted a <br /> • hardcover .variance for the 0-75' setback zone of 11.2% for <br /> construction of home additions. <br /> d. The proposed deck will not encroach any further into the lake setback <br /> than the existing approved deck. <br /> e. The proposed deck will not encroach any further into the bluff setback <br /> than the existing approved deck. <br /> f. The proposal will not increase hardcover levels within the 0-75' zone <br /> above the levels approved in Resolution No. 3191 approved in 1992. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br /> and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br /> comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br /> variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br /> 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are <br /> • peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning <br /> district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br />