Laserfiche WebLink
t' <br />o o <br />^^'EWgO'^ <br />>» <br />f. <br />CITYof ORON <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />Building permit 15678 was issued on July 12, 1985 for <br />remodeling and an addition to the existing residence. The <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 />completion of the remodeling and addition, a paved driveway <br />was installed resulting in 2,909.95 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 to many other properties along <br />Shadywood Road. <br />g) Resolution #1718-B states as follows: <br />"Any extension westerly of the north wall of the <br />existing house must meet the 10' side yard setback." <br />The deck structure does not Involve the extension of the <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 existing on this <br />property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other <br />property in this zoning district; that granting the variance <br />would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor <br />pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would <br />not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is <br />Page 2 of 5