Resolution 2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. .� �.. . . ., ..... . � �. .. ..�N. ��...�..........�.�«....�,-.�..a......,.� . y y R. . - . .. . ��w.� " '• L��N 9Y�7u-k-�' .' - . � .. ' . . ' , w .l 1�� s � . #�: � . ��.;Jr . • �� • . . � . :' � . ;. . : C.�t�..o�- ORO_.NO :�� _ _ ._ _. _ . . �, . .�• � �� J , _ �� RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � NO. 2014 • � • • - fl . : 8. The Orono Planning Commission again reviewed this application on ; " February 18, 1986 and again tabled the application pending information ;� on purchase of the adjacent lot. . ,� 9. The Orono Planning Commission again reviewed the application on � April 21, 1986 and recommended denial of the requested variances, finding that: . � a) The variances requested are excessive considering the � extremely small dry buildable lot area. b) The property cannot be feasibly built upon. without excessive , variances being granted. � , c) The building which was removed was required to be removed � because it was dilapidated and hazardous and was not removed • merely to appease the Planning Commission, and because the building was vacant for a great many years, there are no "gr.andfather" rights to build on the property and that this is not a "taking" of property. � � . , . d) The high level of Lake Minnetonka in the Spring of 1986 gives a good indication that if the variances were granted, the proposed house would be potentially adversely affected by the lake encroaching within 12 feet of the proposed foundation on an . annual basis. � 10. The City Council reviewed this application at their May 12, 1986 meeting and directed staff to draft a resolution of denial of the , requested variances, and directed staff to research £or the applicant what other potential uses the property may have. 11. The property can be put to a reasonable allowed use; it can be combined with the adjacent developed property for use as yard area, - and it can be used for picnicking, or for a garden. 12. Applicants are not able to obtain adjacent vacant property, and the physical character of that property is such that the added vacant• " property �would not alleviate the major problems with development of . the subject property. � • 13. The proposed setback of 10' from the County Road 51 right-of-way, in conjunction with no garage being provided on the property, would force applicants to park their private vehicles within public right- of-way, creating a potential safety hazard. � Page 4 of 6