My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-24-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
03-24-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/31/2023 3:16:37 PM
Creation date
7/31/2023 3:10:08 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.
/
370
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 10,1997 <br />(#10 - #2187 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) <br />GalTron reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the revised application and <br />recommended denial. The variances are a result of the shape and size of the lot and <br />setbacks for an addition to the west end of the residence, a new attached garage, and an <br />attached ^est house with additional garage. The detached garage is to be removed. The <br />residence is located on Lake Classen requiring a 150' setback, which is met by the <br />existing residence with the existing garage at 123'. The revised plan proposes the <br />residence and garage at 126' setback. The existing east side setback is 27' for the house <br />and 7 for the garage, which will be removed There is a 5' separation proposed from the <br />house to the east lot line. The proposed street setback is 24' where 50’ is required. The <br />average setback as defined by the house to the east is encroached to a lesser degree at 80 ’ <br />but no encroachment is allowed. The CUP is for a guest house. An approval was <br />granted last year for a lesser variance that did not include the guest apartment. <br />Gaflfron indicated that the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial was based <br />on the following specific reasons: The need for setback variances to support the <br />proposed guest apartment use suggests that use is not appropriate for the site. The <br />separated garages as proposed yield the appearance of a two-unit dwelling in this single <br />family zoning district. The hardships are self-created, i e., the need for the magnitude of <br />variances requested is a direct result of a proposed additional use on the site rather than a <br />substantial hardship to the property. If approved, the resulting structure would be out of <br />character with the majority of other homes on CoRd 6 in regard to proximity to the road. <br />Gaffron cited other factors which may have entered into the recommendation: The DNR <br />recommended denial of the lake setback variance as it is a self-created hardship. The <br />limited building envelope would be significantly encroached upon. The 5' east side <br />setback previously approved was justified by a finding that no additions to the west were <br />feasible due to the limited building envelope. There is a lack of an alternate drainfield <br />site, though no additional bedrooms over the design capacity are requested. <br />Heupel responded to Gaffron's comttients. He said the applicant does not agree with the <br />hardships being self-imposed. The required setback at the time the property was <br />purchased by the Helgager's was 75’ but now has 1300 s.f. of buildable land. When the <br />Shoreland Ordinance was adopted, the building envelope was reduced rendering the <br />property basically unbuildable. The plans for any addition would require variances, and <br />the proposed revisions are closer to CoRd 6 due to the lake setback. Heupel said the <br />plans have gone through several design changes, and neither he or the applicant view any <br />further changes without a significant cost. <br />Jabbour, while commenting that he agreed with the comments regarding the lot, reported <br />that the Planning Commission w'as willing to work with the applicant regarding the issue <br />of the separated additional garage and were not asking that the 1300 s.f be adhered to.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.