Laserfiche WebLink
� � � °� <br /> 0 0 <br /> '�� CITY of ORONO <br /> '�, �' <br /> ,r,� ;�> .., . �+ <br /> � a1'�`�� �, <br /> ��� ��� �G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �kESHOg' NO. �`a � „�' � <br /> NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of <br /> Orono, Minnesota: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning F;le #03-2936. <br /> 2. The property is located in the LR — 1 C zoning distri�t, which requires a <br /> minimum lot area of '/2 acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The <br /> applicants' property is .49 acres and has a width of 60 feet. <br /> 3. The Planning Commission reviev��ed this application at a public hearing <br /> held on A_ugust 18, 2003 ai�d recommended approval of the lot area, lot <br /> ��-idth and 250-500' zone hardcover variance based on the following <br /> findings: <br /> a. "The property is .49 acres in size when .50 acres is required. <br /> b. �'he property has a lot width of 60 feet at the shoreline and 75' setback <br /> when 100' is rec�uired. <br /> c. Because the lot is being reviewed as a rebuild, the lot must conform to <br /> current Zoning Jrdinance standards or a hardship shall be presente�. <br /> d. Due to ihe contiguratian of the lot, minimal area exists in the 2�0-500' <br /> zone, hence a variance to allo�v excess hardcover for the proposed <br /> detached garage is not reasonable. <br /> e. Because of sight visibilit� problems on Casco Circle, a turnaround is <br /> necessary to safely exit the drive. <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings <br /> and re^ommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, <br /> comtnents by tne applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed <br /> ,�ariance on the health, safety ar.d 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 general?y to other property in this zoning <br /> district; that granti�g the variance �vauld not adversely aff�ct traffic <br /> Page 2 of 6 , <br />