Laserfiche WebLink
�i. • <br /> � ���� ���d C�t o� OR4N0 <br /> .��.. � _ �' <br /> • ��- �� <br /> a`J � <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L <br /> :'.� NO. 2476 <br /> • � � • <br /> A R13SOLDTION GRANTING <br /> A VARIANCS TO <br /> MITNICIPAL ZONING CODL <br /> SECTION 10.28, SDBDIVISION 5 (B) <br /> FILE #1307 <br /> WHER$AS, Diane and Douglas Merz (hereinafter "the applicants") <br /> are owners of the property located at 3195 Watertown Road within the City <br /> of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: <br /> � Lot 1, . Auditors Subdivision No. 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota <br /> (hereinafter "the property"); and <br /> WH$RBAS, 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 f loor level deck and railing located less than the <br /> ; required 50' street yard setback from Leaf Street. <br /> "i NOW, THER$FOR$, BS IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, <br /> ': • Minnesota: <br /> � � FINDINGS <br /> f ' 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 ap�roval of the proposed variance based upon <br /> :'; the following findings: <br /> . <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 impossible to attach a deck to the <br /> house without the need for a variance. <br /> '�+`j 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 previousl,y <br /> �;';.� existing. • <br /> �. ��9 C) The proposed deck will have absolutely no effect on . <br /> y Y'� neighboring properties, and wil 1 have no negative effects on the <br /> -,'� • neighborhood. , <br /> D) Construction of the deck was commenced without a permit, and <br /> - the applicants stated that they did not realize that a permit was <br /> '� required to merely replace the existing deck. <br /> �� . <br /> Page 1 of 4 <br /> r <br />