10-10-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

To: Mayor. Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: October 5, 1988 Subject: #1342 David & Valerie Peterson, 1125 North Arm Drive - Variance - Resolution Application - Request for side setback variance to construct detached garage. Inherent in this application is a request for a conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure on a through lot, and allowing a garage to be located nearer the front lot line than the house. Zoning District - LR-lB, 1 Acre Minimum - Sewered List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice of 10/5/88 Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 9/30/88 Exhibit C - Proposed Resolution Discussion - The applicants are requesti.ig ti construct a garage as sear as 1' from the side property line. Their claimed hardships are configuration of the property, steep topography at the edge of the existing driveway, and the need for a reasunable backup apron. This property was the subject of a lot line rearrangement some years back, which decreased the size of the applicants' property but placed -:he neighboring house within its own property boundaries. Both applicants' house and the neighboring house are skewed somewhat with the property lines, and applicant wishes to keep his garage squared with the structures in the area. However, in order to meet the 10' setbr would have to move the garage north into the parking area or nor` west into his front yard adjacent to the house. With the proji..e, configuration, applicants feel they have a straight -in access to 'che garage which could not be easily accomplished with a different configuration. The Planning Commission at their October 3, 1988 meeting had no problem with construction of the garage nearer the road than the house, nor did they have any problem with granting a conditional use permit for an accessory structure on what is technically a through lot. Planning Commission did however feel that the applicants' hardships did net jus�ify the request for a 1' setback, but felt that a 5' property line setback would be appropriate while still accomplishing the applicants' purposes. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants expressed that a 5' setback would allow them to pivot the garage so that it still would be functional for them. The neighbor to the youth expressed that he has no probl'sm with the garage location as proposed by the applicants. The Planning Commission recommendation leaves an even greater setback to the applicants' property r than was acceptable to the neighbor.