Laserfiche WebLink
. �► <br /> � O� <br /> O O <br /> �bu��, CITY of ORONO <br /> � ,����,�. � _ <br /> ��L � �` 1������,.��'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �k. e 17`04 N O. _. <br /> ESH <br /> � � x� ='_ <br /> A RESOLUTION ��� <br /> REAFFIR��IING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL <br /> TO ALLO�V CONSTRUCTIOi�' PER THE <br /> APPROVED SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO <br /> RESOLUTIO�' NO. 4768 <br /> FILE NO. 02-27�3 <br /> - �VHEREAS, Wesley Byrne and Brenda Byrne, (hereinafter "the applicants") are <br /> owners of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road�vithin the City of Orono(hereinafter"the <br /> City") and legally described as follo�vs: <br /> Attached"Exhibit A",Hennepin County,Minnesota(hereinafter"the property");and <br /> `VHEREAS,the applicants were granted variances for hardcover on March 11,2002 <br /> per the findings and con�itions of City Council Resolution No. 4768 to permit additions to the <br /> existing residence; and <br /> WHEREAS, Condition 4 of Resolution I�'o. 4768 stated as follo�vs: <br /> "If it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all <br /> variances approvals shall be withdra�vn by the City of Orono and a new variance application . <br /> shall be submitted by the applicants."; and <br /> `VHEREAS, 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 existin� residence was removed due to stnictural inte�-ity issues. A portion of the <br /> remo��ed second story had encroached into the required 10' side yard and �vas considered as <br /> nonconforrnin�, and therefore its replacement ���ould normally be subject to meetin; all setback <br /> requirements. It�vas further determined that substantial�vork on the foundation would be required, <br /> trig�erinQ the potential for further revie�v; and <br /> �ti'HEREAS,the issue was brought forth to the City Council on January 13,2003 and <br /> it �vas referred to the Planning Commission for a recommendation; and <br /> «'HEREAS,the Plannin�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 revie��•that the applicant actually had proposed to raise the roof 3-4' <br /> within the substandard setback area. Plannin� Commission voted 6-1 to recommend approval for <br /> Page 1 of 3 <br />