Laserfiche WebLink
% <br />To;Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />% <br />% <br />fromt <br />Dates <br />Subject: <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Ad <br />July 1, 1991 <br />5? <br />% <br />#1652 Daniel and Barbara Fleischman, 500 Hanlon Ave. <br />Variance - Resolution <br />o <br />Zoning District - RR-IB, Single family rural residential, 2 acre, <br />unsewered <br />Application - Request fo ' side and rear setback variances to <br />construct deck <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Proposed Resolution <br />Exhibit B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 6/18/91 <br />Exhibit C - Memo & Exhibits of 6/10/91 <br />Discussion <br />Please review tne memo of June 10, 1991. Briefly, the <br />applicants removed a pre-existing deck because it was rotting, <br />then upon application for a building permit, were advised of the <br />need for variances. <br />Because of the small lot size subject to 2 acre standards, <br />the proposed deck requires rear, left and right side setback <br />variances. Additionally, a lot coverage variance is necessary to <br />allow 22% lot coverage where only 15% ii allowed. <br />Planning Conaission RecoMendation <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their <br />June meeting, and voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval subject to <br />the applicant being notified in the resolution that 22% lot <br />coverage is a maximum for this property. The Planning Commission <br />noted the hardships are the lot size in relation to the zoning <br />district standards, the fact that there was a pre-existing deck, <br />and the locations and elevations of existing door openings in the <br />residence. <br />The Planning Commission also noted that there is no garage <br />on the property, and reviewed the history of the adjacent lot <br />across the alley (see June 10 memo). Planning Commission <br />declined to condition their approval on removal of the metal shed <br />on the tax forfeit lot. However, Planning Commission noted to <br />applicant that that lot is probably the only feasible location <br />for a garage, and although variances would be needed, applicant <br />should consider purchasing that lot. <br />Staff Pwniiindation <br />Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and lot <br />coverage variances. A resolution reflecting the Planning <br />Commission recommendation is attached for Council review. Does <br />Council wish to discuss the issue of the shed on the tax forfeit <br />lot?