My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
07-08-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 11:26:43 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 11:23:09 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.
/
425
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. oif <br />CITYof ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />29 5 5NO. <br />xemuue j. «.**• — -----------------------^ <br />permit was issued on the basis that "grass pavers or mono <br />slabs were to be installed for driveway use at total 19% <br />hardcover (635 s.f. for hardcover of "grass pavers"). <br />c) Since the issuance of the building permit and upon <br />com.pletion of the remodeling and addition, a paved driveway <br />was installed resulting in 2,809.95 s.f. of hardcover. <br />d) The applicant claims that the "grass paver" proposed by <br />applicants in seeking approval of lot area and lot width <br />variance are not suitable for Minnesota's severe climatic <br />extremes and will suffer frost heave and plow disturbance. <br />Failure of such a system would potentially cause damage to <br />applicant's vehicles. In addition, the permeability of the <br />"grass pavers" has not been demonstrated under continuous <br />usage conditions. In 1986 the property to the north was <br />approved at 35% hardcover to allow a paved drive in place of <br />the "grass pavers". <br />e) The Planning Commission finds that existing drive <br />provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a <br />busy county road. <br />f) The request of 75-250' hardcover of 37.4% is not <br />exceptional but is similar tc many other properties along <br />Shadywood Rocd. <br />g) Resolution #1718-8 states as follows; <br />"Any extension westerly of the north wall o « <br />existing house must meet the 10' side yard^ setback. <br />The deck structure does not involve the extension o <br />north wall of the existing residence. <br />h) In 1986 the grade level deck would have been allowed as <br />close as 2' from the side lot line. <br />4. The City Council finds that the conditions <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generala.y .•-nop <br />property in this zoning district; that granting the variance <br />would not adversely affect traffic conditions, <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring <br />not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, bu- <br />Page 2 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.