Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />A RESOLUTION GRANTING <br />A VARIANCE TO <br />NUNICIPAL ZONING CODE <br />SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) <br />FILE i1307 <br />WHEREAS, Diane and Douglas Merz (hereinafter "the applicants") <br />are owners of the property located at 3195 Watertown Road within the City <br />of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: <br />Lot 1, Auditors Subdivision No. 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota <br />(hereinafter "the property"); and <br />WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance <br />to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the <br />construction of a first floor level deck and railing located less than the <br />required 50' street yard setback from Leaf Street. <br />NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, <br />Minnesota: <br />FINDINGS <br />1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1307. <br />2. The property is located in the RR-1B Single Family Rural <br />Residential Zoning District. <br />3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July <br />18, 1988, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon <br />the following findings: <br />A) The proposed deck will be approximately 11' from the west <br />property line abutting Leaf Street at its closest point. Due to <br />the location of the existing house entirely within the 50' <br />required street setback, it is impoesible to attach a deck to the <br />house without the need for a variance. <br />1 <br />B) The proposed deck replaces an existing deck which was removed <br />due to its poor condition. The proposal includes an additional <br />deck at the north end of the house which was not previously <br />existing. <br />C) The proposed deck will have absolutely no effect on <br />neighboring properties, and will have no negative effects on the <br />neighborhood. <br />1 D) Construction of the deck was commenced without a permit, and <br />the applicants stated th9t they did not realize that a permit was <br />required to merely replace the existing deck. <br />Page 1 of 4 <br />I <br />