My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-19-1992 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1992
>
10-19-1992 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2023 10:34:49 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 10:18:15 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
294
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
Chairman Kelley and Planning Commission Members <br />Mayor Peterson and City Council <br />Ron Noorscr City Administrator <br />From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Date:October 15, 1992 <br />Subject #1773 Robert Koehnen, 537 Hanlon Avenue <br />Variances - Public Hearing <br />Zoning District: RR-IB, Rural residential <br />Required = 2 acres <br />Total lot area *= 19,396.5 s.£. <br />Pertinent Ordinances <br />1.Section 10.03, Subd. 21 (3) - Applicant has installed a <br />boulder retaining wall at lot line. The only land <br />alterations allowed within 5' of a lot line are drainage <br />swales or ditches. The boulder wall is approximately 8' in <br />height. <br />2. Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (F) - Side setback variance.* <br />Required <br />Existing <br />Proposed <br />Variance <br />10' <br />7.45* <br />7.45’ <br />2.55* or 25% <br />3. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A) - Rear yard setback <br />Required <br />Existing <br />Proposed <br />Variance <br />10' <br />5.1' <br />5.1* <br />4.9* or 49% <br />Applicant had proceeded to make structural repairs of non- <br />conforming structure consisting of new walls. All work was <br />to cease upon Building Inspector's inspection on September <br />10, 1992. Owner was allowed to complete stud walls to <br />provide support of roof structure. Upon a recent site <br />Inspection with City Engineer, applicant has also installed <br />dry walls. Building Inspectors have advised that applicant <br />may have assumed dry wall work to be included since the <br />purpose was to provide stability of roof structure. The <br />applicant proceeded on his own with full knowledge that <br />until this application is complete he may be asked to <br />relocated garage to a 10' side and rear setback. <br />4. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Review of lot coverage. <br />Allowed = 2,909.5 s.f. or 15% <br />Existing = 2,986.4 s.f. or 15.4% (no changes in lot coverage <br />proposed) <br />Variance = 77 s.f. or .4%
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.