|
r '�{` y 'v`:
<br /> : �
<br /> �
<br /> S.
<br /> � j i vr
<br /> €f
<br /> r.�Y ��j',,
<br /> :n c:,e y,�rd regulation� for tha di�trict in which such lot
<br /> i:_ 1 ;�r
<br /> ;c.�r.cd. �,
<br /> ;..
<br /> ,;;�:
<br /> 3] .410 �� � = � `� w-'�,a>,���,.
<br /> --- -- � �
<br /> _._ • , �.,�,„�;
<br /> Raduction Pr�nibited. No y�rd ar okher open 'space �� � � �
<br /> .__.�..._._.. ,.:x�
<br /> �hall be reduced in areas or dimvnsions Ro es to r�akt �uch � �'`�,��::
<br /> yard or other open spaca leas than ths minimum rsquirtd by - �`�'J
<br /> tt�e Zonin Code and if the existin �'���
<br /> 9 g yard c�r other spaca as �;
<br /> existing is lesa thr,n the mfnimum required, it shall not bs ' . �� �4,:-
<br /> further reduced.
<br /> .. h+�, f;`.
<br /> 24. The front yard in the lakeshore property as decided �t r
<br /> by the Minnesota Supreme Court iri the case of Girvan v. _C__o_un�t� Y� s'���,
<br /> of LeSueur, 232 N.W.2d 888 (1975) and a� applied by th�r City- �'� f '��`
<br /> o�Ocono, �is the yard adjacent to the lake. :° ,�
<br /> . '�'
<br /> �,�;
<br /> 25. The proposed subdfvision, if approved, wQuld result
<br /> in two substandard lots abutting on Casco Cove. Eacb lot musk
<br /> have a mini�um lakeshore frontage width of 100 feet. Tb�t pro-, ` � ��h�^
<br /> posed lots have only 50 feet of lakeshore frontage. The
<br /> Planning Commission and City Council require that tber+a be "` ?"�"
<br /> 100 feet of lot width at both the building location and tbe �����
<br /> lakeshore. Otber subdivfders have beeo danied variances to ��� "`
<br /> reduce the number of feet from the minimum on the lAkeshore ; �s`��..
<br /> in a manner similar to Mr. Sraun's application.
<br /> 26. Variances may only be granted to the above requla-
<br /> tians only pursuant to 532.300 through 32.371 0� tbo Orono
<br /> � --<<,�:;
<br /> Zoning Code.
<br /> u�`-.
<br /> 27. Mr. Braun has not applied for any of the above ' , �
<br /> variances. Even if Mr. Braun had applied for the vAriances �-
<br /> or is deemed to have applied for the above variancea, the
<br /> . variances are denied for the reasons set forth herein: ;�,,gj�
<br /> (1) The granting of the variance� would adveraaly
<br /> affect the purpose and intent of the Zoning Coda snd the wtl- -
<br /> fare of the public.
<br /> (2) T�ere has been no request for varianca�t r�ferr�d �
<br /> to the Planning Commfssion nor has there be�n a waiv�r o! tbt
<br /> requirement that the Planning Commission review any proposed
<br /> variances pursuant to S3Z.330.
<br /> (3) The Planning Commission after nR.ing heard all o� ' -
<br /> � the testimony and reviewed the staft reports, has racoa�tnd�d �, �,
<br /> denial of the proposed aubdivision and any variaaC�; if ope, ::
<br /> i s appl ied for. 5�=t��° `
<br /> ,���r � . ��� •;�
<br /> •. ,�,x.;�k
<br /> �i.n
<br /> , s�,�
<br /> .=;k k ' "�; ���v�,.
<br /> M a #,f�
<br /> k�5
<br /> ��� ����� ��
<br /> ����;� � �.. .
<br /> m ��i r�ar '� T �'� .
<br /> � �� �. s a
<br /> S�h���#d� a
<br /> + � 1
<br /> '� q'� ..���rv=f.� .�
<br /> Wl r� '� � E£�. ":
<br /> . . ��s�'., a^;�F
<br /> i
<br /> � ' . a �����:ta Y"'
<br /> � � .� ���
<br /> ��� ���` � w� . ..
<br /> . S`•Y�+ A �7a �}� ,-1
<br /> -'yh b �k.j1(,�,
<br /> , �� ��
<br /> =Y'.ti.
<br /> ..�,^t �'�+.�'�"S
<br /> .. � ia';'� :`�. ..
<br /> ,� . .^y;a .�a`a�:.
<br /> ��.
<br /> . .�.'�^�.����... .
<br />
|