My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
#3737-variances-1996
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Sixth Avenue North
>
3265 Sixth Ave N - 29-118-23-44-0002
>
Resolutions
>
#3737-variances-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:27:11 PM
Creation date
1/23/2019 12:18:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3265
Street Name
6th
Street Type
Avenue
Street Direction
North
Address
3265 6th Avenue North
Document Type
Resolutions
PIN
2911823440002
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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 /> 0 0 <br /> C ITY of ORONO <br /> � � <br /> �� G'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �9kESH�4'� NO. 3 "� � "� <br /> 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 17, 1996 and <br /> recommended approval of the proposed variances on a vote of 7 to 0 based upon <br /> the following findings: <br /> A. Since all proposed additions meet the 50' strzet setback, no street setback <br /> variance is required. • <br /> B. The location of the proposed additions to the east of the existing house <br /> and as near as 5' to the east side lot line is appropriate based on the <br /> following unique findings: <br /> 1. Additions of the same magnitude as those proposed could not be <br /> located elsewhere on the property �t-ithout encroaching the 50' <br /> required street setback or the 150' required lakeshore setback. <br /> 2. While the property is approximately 1.5 acres in dry buildable <br /> area above of the OHVVL, of I.ake Classen, the buildable envelope <br /> due to the required setbacks is only 1,800 s.f. <br /> 3. If additions were constructed to the south�vest or south of the <br /> house, they �vould eliminate the existing flat back yard area, <br /> resulting in a steep slope directly behind the house. Given the <br /> proximity of County Road 6, it would be appropriate to retain a <br /> usable yard on the south side of the house. <br /> 4. Topography is generally sloping towards the applicants' property, <br /> hence any additional drainage near the lot line caused by the <br /> proposed additions will only impact the applicants, not the <br /> neighboring property owner. <br /> 5. The proposed proximity to the lot line may have a negative <br /> impact on existing screening between applicants' house and the <br /> neighboring house to the east, ho�vever the neighboring property <br /> owner has indicated this is not a concem. <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.