My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:53:40 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
296
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
City of Orono <br />2750 Kelley Parkway <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Orono, MN 55323 <br />Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 <br />MEMORANDUM <br />For Your Information <br />DATE: <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />July 30, 1997 <br />Mayor Jabbour, City Council Members, and Planning Commissioners <br />Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zon’ 'g Administrator <br />SUBJECT: William and Karen Peters, 1950 Concordia Street_______________________ <br />PagkgrQund <br />In March and April 1997 you considered variances for 1950 Concordia Street. The applicants <br />requested an average lakeshore setback variance of approximately 8' to allow a new residence <br />with lakeside decks to be constructed. Another issue was the height of the proposed observatory. <br />A variance to allow the height at 31’4" instead of 30' was also approved. <br />The Building Official, Lyle Oman, informed me on 7-29-97 that the architectural style of the <br />proposed structure had changed and the observator>' has been dropped 7'he new roofline meets <br />the 30' height requirement so the variance is no longer needed. <br />Because of the concerns shown at both the Planning Commission and Cih, - uncil meetings <br />regarding the height and lakeside views, I wanted to let you know that the plans had changed. <br />Please compare the front elevations for both the original and revised plans. Note that the original <br />proposal exceeded the 30' height requirement and needed a variance whereas the revised meets <br />the 30' requirement. The visual diiference is more roof or bulk with the revised roofline. <br />Structurally, theie is no other difference--window placement and building footprint remain the <br />same.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.