Laserfiche WebLink
/ 'O_\� <br /> � <br /> //� �\\ <br /> /O O \ <br /> � C ITY of URONO <br /> � b � I <br /> � /, <br /> �,� G���� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ���SH�i � � NO. `� ��� :�z_ :�' _. <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 '/� (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 fram adjacent residences towards the lakeshore. <br /> D. The overall lot coverage by structures decreases by ° 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 /> propert t�re�lace the total existina structure when remodelin�. but it is <br /> uncommon to allow a net increase when alreadv exceedina 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 keepin� with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> �. 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, ORD�R AND CONDITI�NS <br /> Page 3 of 8 <br />