Laserfiche WebLink
A RESOLUTION <br />REAFFIRMING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAI <br />TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION PER THE <br />APPROVED SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO <br />RESOLUTION NO. 4768 <br />FILE NO. 02-2753 <br />WHEREAS, Wesley Byme and Brenda Byrne, (hereinaAer "ihc applicants") arc <br />owners of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the <br />City") and legally described as follows: <br />Attached “Exhibit A”, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinaAer "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicants were granted variances for hardcover on March 11,2002 <br />per the findings and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 4768 to permit additions to the <br />existing residence; and <br />WHEREAS, Condition 4 of Resolution No. 4768 stated as follows; <br />“If it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all <br />variances approvals shall be withdrawn by the City of Orono and a new variance application <br />shall be submitted by the applicants.**; and <br />WHEREAS, subsequent to issuance of a pennit for construction of the proposed <br />additions, and aAcr substantial work had been completed on those additions, the pre-existing second <br />story of the existing residence was removed due to structural integrity issues. A portion of the <br />removed second stoiy had encroached into the required 10’ side yard and was considered as <br />nonconforming, and therefore its replacement would nonnally be subject to meeting all setback <br />requirements. It was further determined that substantial work on the foundation would be required, <br />triggering the potential for further review; and <br />WHEREAS, the issue was brought forth to the City Council on January 13,2003 and <br />it was referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation; and <br />WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearingon January 22,2003 to <br />review the status of the construction. Planning Commission concluded that in retrospect it was <br />unclear during the March 2002 review that the applicant actually had proposed to raise the roof 3-4* <br />within the substandard setback area. Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval for <br />Page 1 of 3