Laserfiche WebLink
24. The granting of the required variances would result in the <br />follo-ing violations of Section 10.03, Subdivision 3.A of the Zoning <br />Code with which the applicant must first comply before the requested <br />variances can be granted: <br />a) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds <br />that the essential character of the neighborhood will be altered <br />if a building permit is issued for this property. <br />b) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds <br />that to establish a precedent that would allow severely sub- <br />standard lots to be developed in complete conflict with the <br />established environmental standards for lakeshore development <br />within the City and to be detrimental to the public, health, <br />safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader, <br />environmental principals and goals set forth in its Community <br />Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district <br />when dealing with matters related to the public health, safety <br />and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and <br />welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and <br />drainage concerns of surrounding property owners b,at the City <br />also must provide its citizens with a designated and approved <br />optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. <br />25. Approval of an application that requires a 76 per cent variance <br />to lot area would establish a negative precedent in the future <br />development of the LR-1C zoning district. The standards and intent of <br />both the City's Zoning Code and Community Management Plan would no <br />longer have any effect if the City establishes a precedent of <br />approving variances of this degree. <br />Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, <br />at a regular meeting held Mar--2-T; 1986. <br />ATTEST: <br />Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Miry C. Butler, Mayor <br />Paqe 6 of C <br />