My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-13-1990 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1990
>
08-13-1990 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/26/2024 1:32:05 PM
Creation date
11/26/2024 1:29:09 PM
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.
/
724
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
i’4 <br />A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO <br />MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24 SUED. 5(B) <br />FILE #1566 <br />WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. Thomas Regnier (hereinafter "the <br />applicants") are ow..ers of the property located at 1205 Elmwood <br />Avenue within the City of Orono, (hereinafter "City") and legally <br />described as follows: <br />Lot 1, Block 5, Saga Hill Revised Hennepin County, <br />Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a <br />variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24 Subd. 5(B) to <br />permit the construction of additions to the existing residence, <br />such additions being located 6.5 feet from the side street lot <br />line where a side street setback of 35 feet is normally required. <br />NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of <br />the City of Orono, Minnesota: <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as zoning file #1566. <br />2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore <br />Residential Zoning District. <br />3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on <br />July 16, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance <br />on a vote of 5 to 0, based upon the following findings: <br />a. The additions will have no significant effect on the <br />perception of visual density in the neighborhood. <br />b. There is no other reasonable and feasible location <br />for the addition meeting the code requriements, the <br />hardship being the existing house location and the lot <br />width in relation to the required side street and side <br />yard setbacks. <br />Page 1 of 5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.