My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-1997 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1997
>
10-13-1997 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/1/2023 10:09:37 AM
Creation date
8/1/2023 10:05:55 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.
/
408
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 continued <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />October 10, 1997 <br />Zoning File #2295 <br />City would approve variances for a garage in this location if a garage had never been there <br />previously. The negative visual impacts of structures located within 1' of the street right- <br />of-way on a rural lane, in staff s opinion, should outw'eigh the "convenience" aspect of the <br />structure. Applicant notes the distance from his residence to his useable shoreline is a <br />hardship. However, this garage location is so far removed from applicant's residence that <br />it will appear to the casual observer to be totally disassociated from any neighborine <br />residence. <br />City code allows a 20 s.f., 4' high lock box to be placed at the shoreline for storage of <br />lake related equipment. While such a lock box may not replace the storage needs <br />suggested by the applicant, such storage could certainly be accomplished by an accessory <br />structure adjacent to or attached to the existing residence. Further, it can be argued that <br />there is no reasonable hardship because the storage needs can be uccomplished in a <br />conforming manner within applicant's property. In staffs opinion, granting these <br />variances will merely be a convenience to the property owner but are not supported by a <br />reasonable hardship. Therefore, staff does not support this variance request. <br />B. Fence replacement. <br />Staff does not recommend approval of this request. The existing fence is deteriorated to <br />a point that it should just simply be removed and a new fence be located in a conforming <br />location. A conforming location would be far enough from the road that tht fence would <br />not be a visual intrusion into the natural look of West Femdale Road as one travels it. On <br />the other hand, a new 6' stockade type fence 10' from the road will be, in staff’s opinion, <br />a new visual intrusion, similar to other such fences existing along West Ferndale Road. <br />If Council chooses to approve replacement of the fence within the right-of-way, staff <br />recommends the following minimum conditions of approval: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />The fence should be located at least 15' from the paved roadway; <br />The applicant should attempt to leave as much existing shrubbery in front of it as <br />possible for screening, and should be required to plant additional screening <br />materials between 10-15' from the pavement in front of the fence. <br />Applicant should be required to execute a hold harmless agreement, relieving the <br />City from any responsibility for damage to or maintenance of that fence located in <br />the City right-of-way.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.