Resolution 4774 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i�� �� . � o o � ��b. � CITY of ORONO ,� � . � �� G'�' � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��SH�4� � NO. � � � � . 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0 based on the following findings and hardships: A. The property met all code requirements in 1991 and was considered a buildable lot at that time. The new wetland boundary as determined by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc., Golden Valley, Minnesota, shows a larger wetland basin than what was thought to be located on the property. B. The larger wetland basin causes two development issues for the property � owners. The wetland basin's size has limited the building envelope to a small corner of the property. The area available to develop is then substantially reduced by the required 35'setback to the back property line and side yard setback. � C. The area of the wetland is larger than first believed,the actual area of the lot is reduced in size to less than one acre. The City of Orono did find in 1991 that the area.of the property was 1 acre. The change to the wetland . � determination method has changed the defined lot area of the property,as has the ability to credit wetland as buildable area. The defined lot azea is now approximately 0.8 acre. D. The location of the sewer service 10'from the south property line shifts the � building location an additional 10' to the north, which causes the wetland �buffer impact. E. The property owners have identified areas on the property to mitigate a total of 2,180 s.f.of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures. ' F.� The 17.76' setback to the street property line is justified by tlie fact the , wetland area restricts any development further north and east on the property. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants,but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty;is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with • the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. � Page 2 of 6 .