My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 2284
Orono
>
Resolutions, Ordinances, Proclamations
>
Resolutions
>
Reso 0001-7399
>
Reso 2200 - 2299 (June 8, 1987 - November 23, 1987)
>
Resolution 2284
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/29/2016 11:11:36 AM
Creation date
4/29/2016 11:11:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
View images
View plain text
. �, . <br /> �- � <br /> ,'-:� <br /> Cit� o� ORONO <br /> � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> � NO. 2284 <br /> � <br /> ' • - • • <br /> A RESOLIITION GRAIdTING <br /> A VARIANCE TO • . . <br /> � I+�iJNICIPAI, ZONING COD}3 <br /> SECTION 10.24, SDBDIVISION 5 (B) <br /> FIL$ #1206 � <br /> WH$REAS, Katherine C. Perry (hereinafter "the applicant") is the , <br /> owner of the property located at 2693 Kel ly Avenue within the City of Orono <br /> (hereinafter "City") and Iegally described as follows: <br /> Block 2, Carman Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the <br /> property"); and <br /> Tnl�$REAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to <br /> Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the <br /> construction of a deck and screen porch Iocated 32 feet from the side <br /> street Iot line where a 35 foot side street setback is normally required. <br /> NOW, THEREFOR$, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, <br /> • Minnesota: , <br /> FINUINGS <br /> 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1206. <br /> 2. The property is Iocated in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore <br /> Residential Zoning District. <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October <br /> 19, 1987, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon <br /> the following findings: <br /> A) Moving the wall of the porch to meet the 35' required setback <br /> would place the wall in conflict with existing door and window <br /> Iocations. <br /> B) The porch and deck as proposed W�ii have no significant <br /> visual effect on the character of the neighborhood. • <br /> 4. The City Council has considered this application including the <br /> findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by <br /> City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed <br /> variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. <br /> � <br /> Page 1 of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.