Laserfiche WebLink
8. The Orono Planning Commission age' reviewed this application on <br />February 18, 1986 and again tabled the application pending information <br />on purchase of the adjacent lot. <br />9. The Orono Planning Commission again reviewed the application on <br />April 21, 1986 and recommended denial of the requested variances, <br />finding that: <br />a) The variances requested are excessive considering the <br />extremely smal'- dry buildable lot area. <br />b) The property cannot be feasibly built upon without excessive <br />variances being granted. <br />c) The building which was removed was required to be removed <br />because it was dilapidated and hazardous and was not removed <br />merely to appease the Planning Commission, and because the <br />bkA lding was vacant for a great many years, there are no <br />"grandfather" rights to build on the property and that this is <br />not "taking" of property. <br />d) The high level of Lake Minnetonka in the Spring of 1986 gives <br />a good indication that if the variances were granted, the <br />proposed house would be potentially adversely affected by the <br />lak? encroaching within 12 feet of the proposed foundation on an <br />annual basis. <br />10. The City Council reviewed this application at their May 12, 1986 <br />meeting and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of the <br />requested variances, and directed staff to research for the applicant <br />what other potential uses the property may have. <br />11. The property can be put to a reasonable alloweJ use; it can be <br />combined with the adjacent developed property for use as yard area, <br />and it car, be used for picnicking, or for a garden.. <br />12. Applicants are not able to obtain adjacent vacant property, and <br />the physical character of that property is such that the added vacant <br />property would not alleviate the major problems with development of <br />the subject property. <br />13. The proposed setback of 10' from the County Road 51 right-of-way, <br />in conjunction with no ,..,)rage beinr provided on the property, would <br />force applicants to park their private vehicles within public right- <br />of-way, creating a potentia safety hazard. <br />Page 4 of 6 <br />