My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-17-2010 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
05-17-2010 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/14/2012 3:51:03 PM
Creation date
8/14/2012 3:50:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
� °� . : . <br /> . o o � <br /> �e, - C ITY of ORONO <br /> � � . <br /> ti <br /> �� G�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��kESHOg'� NO., 3117 <br /> 3 . The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on <br /> February 18 , 1992 and April 20 , 1992, and recommended <br /> approval of the variances as amended based upon the <br /> � following findings: <br /> a) The 15' high lakeside banks shield the proposed deck <br /> from the views at lakeshore. <br /> b) TKe lakeside deck will not encroach the average - <br /> lakeshore setback determined by the closest projections <br /> of the decks on the adjacent properties . <br /> c) Location of view windows of applicant' s residence, <br /> location of mature trees within the side and lakeshore <br /> . yard and location of a house to the immediate south are <br /> factors which limit the locating of deck on this <br /> property. � <br /> d) The proposed deck will meet the Minnesota Department oi <br /> Natural Resources 50' minimum setback for general <br /> development lake such as Lake Minnetonka. <br /> e) Proposed � detached garage shall encroach no closer <br /> within substandard street or side setbacks of current <br /> garage. <br /> 4 . The City Council finds that the conditions existing �on this <br /> ��property are peculiar to � it and do not apply generally to <br /> � other property in this zoning district; that granting the <br /> variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions , <br /> light , air nor pose a r"ire nazard or ��ner dar.g�� to <br /> neighboring property; would, not merely serve as a <br /> convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate <br /> a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to . <br /> preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and <br /> would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning <br /> Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> 5 . The City Council has considered this application including <br /> • the findings and recommendations of the P Ianning Commission, <br /> reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the <br /> effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and <br /> . welfare �of the community. <br /> Page 2 of 5 � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.