My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-21-1992 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1992
>
09-21-1992 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2023 10:10:10 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 10:00:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
156
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Zoning File #1761 <br />September 16, 1992 <br />Page 2 <br />Status of Outlet <br />Outlet B was created for the specific purpose of providing <br />access and a site for the graywater mound system to serve the <br />residences at 3424, 3444 and 3464 Eastlake Street. The main <br />driveway serving all three residences is partially within the <br />outlet. Mo specific references to construction of accessory <br />buildings was placed in either the approval resolution for the <br />plat nor within the covenants regarding the outlet. While the <br />outlet appears to be owned by Dean and Nancy Monge at 3444, the <br />covenants require that the owners of all three benefitted lots <br />control the outlet as tenants in common. <br />In allowing this subdivision to occur in 1981 under relaxed <br />standards to the f’oning area requirement of the two acre zone, <br />the City clearly intended that the outlet serve not only as a <br />private access road but for sewage system purposes. This lot <br />could not be used for a principal residence. <br />Discussion <br />Please review the letter of request. Section 10.03, Subd. 9 <br />(A), which states "no accessory building or structure shall be <br />constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the <br />principal building to which it is accessory", was intended to <br />avoid situations where there is no tenant on the property to <br />control the use of an accessory structure. Clearly, that is not <br />the case with the Hunsley situation, since the three abutting <br />property owners all control the outlot. It would therefore seem <br />reasonable, in this case, to grant a variance to allow the <br />accessory structure at some location on the outlot which will <br />have little visual impact and not conflict with utilities, <br />easements, etc. <br />The code does not give specific setbacks for structures on <br />outlots. If Outlot B is treated as the street yard of a <br />lakeshore lot, the setback from the street for an accessory <br />storage building would be 50*. A location 50' from the street <br />would place the structure in the middle of the outlot where it <br />would be highly visible. As constructed, it is hidden from view <br />by fencing and a large willow tree. <br />Also be advised that the property owners have granted to the <br />City an easement for the lift station to be contained within the <br />outlot, as part of the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. This easement <br />was granted to the City at no cost, and is located at the <br />southeast corner of the property. <br />Hardcover would appear to be a non—issue. While each of the <br />three building lots is at or slightly above the hardevoer limits <br />as a result of past approvals, the outlot hardcover including <br />driveway and shed appears to be minimal, approximately 5%. <br />i <br />4
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.