Laserfiche WebLink
To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />Planning Commission Chairman Kelley <br />Orono Planning Commission Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />Fro*: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: April 10, 1989 <br />Subjects #1394 Jackson Wilson, 3059 Farview Lane - <br />After-the-Fact Variance - Public Hearing <br />/ <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A <br />Exhibit B <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />Exhibit <br />C <br />D <br />E <br />F <br />G <br />- Application <br />- Applicant's Addendum <br />- Property Owners List <br />- Plat Map <br />- Building Permits for 3059 Farview Lane <br />- Original Survey <br />- Current Survey <br />Pertinent Ordinance - <br />Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Addition to principal residence <br />constructed 4 months after original permit issued for new residence <br />does not meet required 26' setback to adjacent wetlands. The <br />substandard wetlands was discovered based on new information from <br />current survey. Representatives of the new owner of the property have <br />asked that the substandard setback be reaffirmed and approved by the <br />City of Orono. Variance setback is as follows: <br />Required = 26' <br />Existing « 20' <br />Variance « 6' or 23% <br />At Council's meeting of March 13, 1989, Council approved an amendment <br />of the original drainage easement line that defined the wetlands area <br />within Lot 6 of the Farview plat (review Exhibit G). Note the <br />gerrymandered line as it surrounds the indoor squash court addition of the <br />existing residence. Review Exhibit F, the original survey noted only the <br />existing wetlands at the 930 elevation and not the actual straight line of <br />the surveyor's measurement for the drainage easement within Lot 6, Farview. <br />The indoor squash court addition was issued approximately 4 months after <br />the building permit for the existing residence. The residence was at yet <br />not completed. In reviewing the files, staff has no record of an updated <br />survey nor of an inspection notice confirming a site inspection that would <br />have been a routine procedure back in 1979 to confirm the required setback. <br />As applicant's addendum notes (Exhibit B), the issuance of a building <br />permit by the City for new construction would strongly suggest that all <br />zoning and building standards had been satisfied at that time. Applicant <br />advises that the denial of this variance would create an unmarketable <br />proper'‘y and would be economically unfeasible to correct. <br />Staff has made an inspection of the area and confirms the 20' setback <br />to the 930' elevation. Planning Commission members will observe the 930' <br />elevation has been staked by the property owner. Staff will recommend <br />approval of the after-the-fact variance to the Council, and in addition <br />will strongly recommend that the fee paid for this application be refunded <br />to the new owner and applicant.