My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
08-11-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 9:00:11 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 8:53:40 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.
/
296
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
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION 5^. <br />% <br />% <br />DATE: August 6, I^q <br />ITEM NO.:■::2 <br />Department Approval: <br />Name Michael P. Gaffron <br />Title Senior Planning Coordinator <br />Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: <br />Zoning <br />Item Description: #2259 Mark and Laurie Headrick, 1850 Fox Ridge Road - Variance - Denial <br />Recommendation <br />Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. <br />Application: Request for side setback and front setback variances to convert existing garage to <br />a family room and add a new two car garage. <br />Pertinent Code Section <br />Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): <br />Required side yard = 30’ (existing = 24.5’, proposed = 5') <br />Required front yard = 50’ (existing = 38.6', proposed = 36.6') <br />List of Exhibits <br />A - Notice of Planning Commission Action <br />B - Letter from Adjacent Owner of 1895 Fox Ridge Rd. <br />C - Memo and Exhibits of 7/15/97 <br />Discussion <br />Please carefully review the memo and exhibits of July 15th. Briefly, applicants propose an <br />addition to be located 5’ from the side lot line where a 30’ side setback is required. The proposed <br />addition also will encroach 2’ closer to the road than the existing garage, which is at a 38.6 street <br />setback where 50' is required. <br />Planning Commission Recommendation <br />Planning Commission reviewed this application at their July meeting and on a vote of 6-0, <br />recommended denial based on the impact of the setback encroachment on the visual density and <br />character of the neighborhood, finding that the proposed 5’ side setback would leave too small a <br />separation between applicants ’ residence and that to the north. The property owner to the north <br />submitted a letter which was read at the Planning Commission meeting, objecting to the variance
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.