Laserfiche WebLink
\ - <br /> / <br /> n - <br /> �! ' . <br /> 4 � <br /> .���. <br /> . +�� ��'=i3 CitV o� OR,ONO <br /> � A ��- �] <br /> `{{ti' ��»�`X. V <br /> . .�' ..,;-��'�i ,� ' <br /> • f�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. 2212 <br /> �� ' A RESOLUTIOAi GRANTING <br /> - �F <br /> • ' • • A v�a�xc$ To <br /> ,. <br /> MIINICIPAL ZONING CODE <br /> SECTION 10.03, SIIBDIVISION 9(C) AND • <br /> GRANTING A CONDITIONAL DSE PERMIT PER <br /> SECTION 10.20, SIIBDIVISION 3(G) <br /> FILE #1143 <br /> WHERBAS, Dona ld Wi ldman (hereinaf ter "the app 1 icant") is <br /> the owner of the property located at 745 Spring Hill Road within the <br /> City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: <br /> Exhibit A Attached (hereinafter "the property" ) ; and <br /> WHER$AS, the applicant has made application to the City of <br /> Orono to permit construction of a combinatiori detached garage and <br /> guest house per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20 Subd. 9 (C) , such <br /> accessory structure exceeding the maximum allowable floor area of <br /> 1,000 square feet and requiring a variance to Section 10.03 Subd. <br /> 9 (C) . <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOY�VED by the City Counci 1 of Orono, <br /> •Minnesota: <br /> FINDINGS <br /> l. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1143 <br /> 2. The property is ?ocated in the RR-1B Single Family Rural <br /> Residential Zoning District.� " <br /> 3. The property is approximately 24 acres in area. <br /> 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on ' <br /> June 15, 1987, and recommended denial of the requested variance <br /> and conditional use permit on a 4-2 vote, finding that no <br /> hardship exists to justify granting of the requested f loor area <br /> variance for the proposed structure which contains 2,435 s.f. <br /> f loor area where only 1,000 s.f. of f loor area is normal ly <br /> allowed. <br /> 5. Council finds that the size of the property at 24 acres <br /> creates a legitimate need for storage space for the .equipment and <br /> vehicles needed to maintain that size of property, and finds that <br /> it would be a hardship and would not be aesthetically pleasing � <br /> nor architecturally appropriate to require that the 'functions of <br /> the proposed structure be relegated to multiple accessory <br /> buildings on the property. <br /> � Page 1 of 4 <br />