My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 3132
Orono
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7499
>
Reso 3100 - 3199 (March 23, 1992 - November 9, 1992)
>
Resolution 3132
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2016 12:59:27 PM
Creation date
8/17/2016 12:59:26 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
,o . <br /> � � <br /> • ° : ° <br /> �b. � CITY of ORONO <br /> � � � <br /> ��� �G'�'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �kESH.�g' NO. 313 2 <br /> C. The hardship to the property lies in its extreme <br /> narrowness at the point where the defined lot <br /> width is measured. Furthermore, there is no <br /> adjacent land available for purchase that would � <br /> increase the defined lot width to the 200' minimum <br /> standard. <br /> � 4. The Hennepin County Department of Public Works has <br /> verified that the County will approve a private <br /> driveway access onto County Road 15. <br /> 5. Although the property contains a feasible building <br /> site, that site is limited by narrowness of the lot and � <br /> by the designated drainfield sites, hence careful site <br /> planning wil 1 be required in developing the property. <br /> Therefore, it is appropriate that a diagram of the <br /> • building envelope and drainfield sites be filed with <br /> this resolution to make future potential buyers of the <br /> property aware of the site limitations. (Refer to Page <br /> 6 of this resolution.) <br /> 6. The City Council originally granted this variance in � <br /> 1989 per Resolution No. 2650 and in 1990 per Resolution <br /> No. 2829 and finds no changes from the original <br /> findings of that resolution. . <br /> 7. , The City Council finds that the conditions existing on <br /> this property are peculiar to it and do not apply <br /> generally to other property in this zoning district; <br /> � that granting the variance would not adversely affect <br /> traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard <br /> . or other danger to neighboring property; would not <br /> merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br /> necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or <br /> difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial <br /> property right of the applicant; and would be in <br /> keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code <br /> and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> 8. The City Council has considered this application <br /> including the findings and recommendations of the <br /> Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by <br /> • the applicant and the effect of the variances on the <br /> health, safety and welfare of the community. <br /> � . Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.