01-16-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2099 January 10, 1996 Page 5 8.Technically, any structure placed on proposed Lot 2 will require an average lakeshore setback variance. Front/Back Lvt Issues As is noted in the previous table, the proposed subdivision configuration clearly create a front lot and a back lot under the zonin^subdivision code definitions. Because this is a new subdivision, the front^ack lot standards apply, requiring the use of a 30* wide outlot for access to the back lot, requiring the back lot to meet 150% of the 2 acre standard, and requinng the back lot to meet 150% of the normal side and street lot line setbacks. Further, the house on the front lot is required to meet the standard "side street" setback from the outlot, which in this case is 50'. Note that the proposed house could only meet a 20’ setback from the outlot in order to maintain the 75’ lakeshore setback. Note also that the required front or street setback for Lot 2 is 75', which is met. Hardcover Lot 1 becomes somewhat smaller than proposed by applicants when the 30' outlot is created. The site plan proposed would yield 28.8% hardcover in Lot 1, which is approximately 500 s.f. over the limit. In Lot 2, which has a larger 75-250’ area, hardcover will be under the 25% limit Hardcover within the outlot itself will be 35%, above the 25% limit. Overall, hardcover on the property under the current proposal will be 10,642 s.f., or approximately 12% of Ae entire lot area, as compared to the DNR’s standard of 25% for the entire property. Under Orono’s more restrictive standards, the 75-250’ zone will be approximately 24.9%, just under the limit. Subdivision Issues Aside from the need for variances to lot width, setbacks, average lakeshore setback and hardcover, the primary issue with this subdivision is the creation of two very substandard building lots from three existing record lots which individually would each be considered unbuildable without manv variances. Further adding to the problem is that the three existing lots have historically been used for all intents and purposes as a single property. The existing situation is nonconforming in a great number of respects. 1.Each of the three existing lots is less than the required 2 acre minimum lot area [Section 10.23, Sub. 6(B)]. IniBMk rr