Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> O � <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��`�kEsKo4`�G NO. 4 <br /> A RESOLUTION <br /> REAFFIRMING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL <br /> TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION PER THE <br /> APPROVED SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 4768 <br /> FILE NO. 02-2753 <br /> WHEREAS, Wesley Byrne and Brenda Byrne, (hereinafter "the applicants") are <br /> owners of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono(hereinafter"the <br /> City") and legally described as follows: <br /> Attached"Exhibit A",Hennepin County,Minnesota(hereinafter"the property");and <br /> WHEREAS,the applicants were granted variances for hardcover on March 11,2002 <br /> per the findings and conditions of City Council Resolution No. 4768 to permit additions to the <br /> existing residence; and <br /> WHEREAS, Condition 4 of Resolution No. 4768 stated as follows: <br /> "If it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all <br /> variances approvals shall be withdrawn by the City of Orono and a new variance application <br /> shall be submitted by the applicants."; and <br /> WHEREAS, subsequent to issuance of a permit for construction of the proposed <br /> additions,and after substantial work had been completed on those additions,the pre-existing second <br /> story of the existing residence was removed due to structural integrity issues. A portion of the <br /> removed second story had encroached into the required 10' side yard and was considered as <br /> nonconforming, and therefore its replacement would normally be subject to meeting all setback <br /> requirements. It was further determined that substantial work on the foundation would be required, <br /> triggering the potential for further review; and <br /> WHEREAS,the issue was brought forth to the City Council on January 13,2003 and <br /> it was referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation; and <br /> WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 22,2003 to <br /> review the status of the construction. Planning Commission concluded that in retrospect it was <br /> unclear during the March 2002 review that the applicant actually had proposed to raise the roof 3-4' <br /> within the substandard setback area. Planning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend ap roval for <br /> Metro Leal crvicees Inc. <br /> Page 1 of 3 '` '°" <br />