Laserfiche WebLink
1 4 <br /> � O� <br /> • O �� O . . <br /> - S � CITY of ORONO <br /> ,� ,, . �, . <br /> � .; <br /> t . � <br /> ti <br /> . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> ��� p4�G N0. � � + <br /> kESB <br /> 4. The existing detached garage foundation is 23'from the west side lot line,conforming <br /> in setback for a detached garage but where a 30'setback is normally required for an <br /> � attached garage,requiring a variance for reconstruction of the garage as an attachment � <br /> to the residence. The west side lot line abuts the Dakota Rail corridor.It is expected <br /> that this corridor will eventually become a regional trail. <br /> 5. The cul-de-sac exists within the southwest corner of the property and by City code <br /> a line drawn 10' from the edge of this public right-of-way defines the front lot line <br /> - for zoning purposes. The detached garage foundation is 28' from this front lot line <br /> defined by the cul-de-sac. The required front yard in the LR-lA Zoning District is <br /> 50' <br /> 6. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on <br /> January 22,2003 and recommended approval of the lot area varainace,denial of the <br /> side setback variance, and conditional approval of the front setback variance, and <br /> • made the following findings: <br /> a) The lot area of 0.78 acres is sufficient to allow reconstruction on the site, � <br /> �where a residence has previously existed for many years. <br /> b) Removal of the existing residence and rebuilding using the existing foundation <br /> clearly is considered as new construction requiring that all lot standards must <br /> be met. <br /> c) There is insufficient hardship to support the requested side setback variance. <br /> The lack of storage area due to lack of a basement suggested by the applicant <br /> as a hardship,can be ameliorated by construction of additional space meeting <br /> � the required side setback. . <br /> d) The cul-de-sac is apparently not platted nor dedicated to the public via known <br /> easement, but exists as a public prescriptive easement outside of and in <br /> addition to the adjacent platted right-of-way the and is therefore considered <br /> as a hardship to the property, in this uniq�ae situation, that justifies some <br /> measure of variance to the front setback requirement. . <br /> � <br /> Page 2 of 6 <br />