My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-13-1995 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1995
>
03-13-1995 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2023 8:45:22 AM
Creation date
10/6/2023 8:42:23 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.
/
335
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
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE <br />TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE <br />SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) <br />FILE NO. 19% <br />WHEREAS, Gregg Perl (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property <br />located at 309 Westlake Street within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: <br />Lots 1. 2, and 3, Block 2, Hillside Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota <br />(hereinafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal <br />Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to allow expansions of the existing roof envelope <br />where a portion of the structure is located 12 ’ from a side lot line where a 30’ side setback is <br />required. The proposed structural improvements will result in an addition of two bedrooms <br />within the second level of the southwest comer of the residence. <br />Minnesota: <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1996. <br />2. <br />3. <br />The property is located in the LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning <br />District requiring two acres in area. The total property consists of 1.6 acres. <br />The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Febmary 22, 1W5 <br />and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following <br />unique findings and hardships: <br />A. The property receiving the most impact by the substandard setback of this <br />structure is a residence located approximately 60’ away. The expai^ion <br />of the roof envelope will not cause any significant encroachment on light, <br />air or open space in the immediate neighborhood. <br />Page 1 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.