My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-27-1989 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
02-27-1989 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:00:47 AM
Creation date
3/21/2025 9:57:54 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.
/
428
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
Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />fta 27 issa'* <br />OF CiijVij <br />Frost Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Dates February 23, 1989 <br />Subjects #1359 David J. Lindstrom, 131^;; ^^odhill Avenue - <br />Variance - Resolution <br />(B) - Front Street Setback Variance <br />Fertinent OrdioenM * <br />Section 1C.28, Subdivision 5 <br />Allowed - 50* <br />Existing ■ 31*3** <br />Proposed ■ 31*3" <br />Variance « 18*9" <br />The Planning Commission at their February 21st meeting unanimously <br />approved the amended site plan of the proposed improvement of the property <br />that would now require a front/street setback variance as opposed to the <br />separation setback. At the January 17th meeting, the minority opinion of <br />the Planning Commission advised the applicant that they had not felt that <br />he had explored all the options available for Improvement of the property. <br />At that January meeting, the applicant*s proposal would have required a <br />separation setback of 6 feet from the detached garage and based on the <br />requirements of the fixe code, construction costs would be excessive. <br />In the second proposal, the applicant proposed the expansion along the <br />west side of the house that would encroach no closer to the front/street <br />lot line than the existing principal residence. The amended proposal <br />provides less of an Impact on existing improvements. The enclosed <br />resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission r'commendation. <br />The hardships noted by the Planning Commission were as follows* <br />1. The location of the well on the south side of the existing <br />residence. <br />2. The drop in elevations along the east side in addition to the <br />drainfleld being located within the east side yard. <br />3. i'ortions of the house already exist within substandard setback <br />area.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.