My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 4640
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 0001-7547
>
Reso 4600 - 4699 (January 22, 2001 - October 8, 2001)
>
Resolution 4640
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:22 PM
Creation date
11/16/2015 1:49:52 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
' ' /' / O <br /> � � <br /> O O <br /> ��, � CITY of ORONO <br /> � � � . <br /> ��� �G'� RESOWTION OF THE C�ITY COUNCIL <br /> \kESTrI� NO. � `� � _. <br /> � <br /> to reduce some hardcover closest to the lake. A 14' X 14' four season <br /> porch would be constructed in its place. The four season porch would <br /> be located 105' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. <br /> C. The property was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning <br /> ordinance. The house is approximately 10' from the side lot line at the <br /> lakeside and is angled to a point where the house is only 2.85' from the <br /> property line. A second story addition has been designed to leave the <br /> front '/2 (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/z <br /> (street side) would have a second story. This concentrates the massing <br /> of the structure further from the lakeshore, and eases the burden of the <br /> views from adjacent residences towards the lakeshore. <br /> D. The overall lot coverage by structures decreases by 9 s.f. Most of the <br /> massing has been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the <br /> street side to allow for the larger garage. For a lot coverage variance to <br /> be approved an actual hardship must be demonstrated to allow the <br /> increase in structure. The Council has in manv situations allowed a <br /> prope_ to re�lace the total existin,� structure when remodelin�. but it is <br /> uncommon to allow a net increase when alreadv exceedin� 15%. <br /> 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar <br /> to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that <br /> granting the 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 necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br /> property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> . intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and <br /> recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments <br /> by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety <br /> and welfare of the community. <br /> CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.