Laserfiche WebLink
� �°�o <br /> - C ITY C,F ORON4 <br /> � <br /> ,. R�SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��1� 4�`'�� N o. � 5 1 9 <br /> ��'SH� <br /> 5} Regarding the lake and average iakeshore setback veriances far the additions and <br /> rrfodifications to the home, the Appiicants' request is in harmony vvith t}�e purpose and <br /> interrt of the ordinance. <br /> 6) Regarding tfi�e lake and average lak�hore setback variances for the addihon$ and <br /> modffications to the home, the Applicants' proposai is consisteht wi�th the comprehensive <br /> ptan. <br /> 7) The Cit�+ Council ffnds that the conditlons existing on this Property are peculiar to it and <br /> do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the average <br /> lakeshore and lake setback variances for the add�ions and mod�cations to the home <br /> would not adversely affect traffic condttlons, light, air�nor pose a flre hazard or othe� <br /> danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the <br /> Applicants, bu# is necessary to alieviate a prac#ical difficulty; is necessary to preserve a <br /> substanflal property right of the AppUcar�ts; end woutci be (n keeping with #he spirtt and <br /> Intent of the Zoning Caie and Comprehensive Plan of the City. <br /> 8) Wlth regards to the in-ground poo1, granting of a variance fer the proposecf in-ground pool <br /> to permit additional har�dcover within 75 feet af the OHWL is inconsistent w�th the goals <br /> and policies c�ntained within the 20D0-2D30 Qrono Communify Management Ptan. <br /> 9} The add�ional hardcover within the 0-75 foot setbadc resul�ng from the proposed in- <br /> ground pool may alter the sssential character of the neighborhood and wauld be <br /> Inconsistent with the intent of the zoning oode. <br /> 10)With regards to the proposed in-ground pool, the City Counci! fincis that granting the <br /> setback hardc�ver variances would merely serve as a c:onvenience to the Applicants, and <br /> that no practical difficufty ewsts to support these variances; approval of tt�ese ya�a�� is <br /> not necessary to preserve a st�bstantiai property right of the Applicants; and approval of <br /> these variances would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and <br /> Comprehens�ve Plan of the City. <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Counal o# Orono, Minnesota <br /> hereby grants a variance from Orono ARunicipal Zoning Code Sec�ion 78-1279 to permi# <br /> construction of additions and mod�ications te the existing home 84 feef feet from the OHWL; <br /> and a variance from Orono City Code Section 78-1279 tv permlt construction the proposed <br /> modfications and additions ahead of the average lakeshore setbacK Ifne; and <br /> FURTHER� BE !T RESOLVED tfiat the City Counci! hereby denies a variance #rom <br /> Orono City Code Section 78-1279 to permlt cflnstruction of an in-ground pool ahead of tF►e <br /> average lakeshore setback line in the location proposed; denies a varisnce from City Code <br /> Section 78-1279 to permi# construction of an in-ground pool 80 feet from the OFiWL where a <br /> 100-foot structurai sethack is required; a�d denies a variance from C�ty Code Section 78- <br /> Page 4 of 6 <br />