My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
01-27-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:59:13 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:41:37 PM
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.
/
392
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
4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />The existing detached garage foundation is 23' from the west side lot line, conforming <br />in setback for a detached garage but where a 30' setback is normally required for an <br />attached garage, requiring a variance for reconstruction of the garage as an attachment <br />to the residence. The west side lot line abuts the Dakota Rail corridor. It is expected <br />that this corridor will eventually become a regional trail. <br />The cul-de-sac exists within the southwest comer of the property and by City code <br />a line drawn 10' from the edge of this public right-of-way defines the front lot line <br />for zoning purposes. The detached garage foundation is 28 ’ from this front lot line <br />defined by the cul-de-sac. The required front yard in the LR-1A Zoning District is <br />50*. <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br />January 22,2003 and recommended approval of the lot area varainacc, denial of the <br />side setback variance, and conditional approval of the front setback variance, and <br />made the following findings: <br />a)The lot area of 0.78 acres is sufficient to allow reconstruction on the site, <br />where a residence has previously existed for many years. <br />Removal ofthe existing residence and rebuilding using the existing foundation <br />clearly is considered as new construction requiring that ail lot standards must <br />be met. <br />There is insufficient hardship to support the requested side setback variance. <br />The lack of storage area due to lack cf a basement suggested by the applicant <br />as a hardship, can be ameliorated by constmetion of additional space meeting <br />the required side setback. <br />The cul-de-sac is apparently not platted nor dedicated to the publie via known <br />easement, but exists as a public prescriptive casement outside of and in <br />addition to the adjacent platted right-of-way the and is therefore considered <br />as a hardship to the property, in this unique situation, that justifies some <br />measure of variance to the front setback requirement. <br />Page 2 of 6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.