03-10-1986 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO: Orono Council Members COUNCIL MUTING FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator DATE: March 6, 1986 Moop 101986 SOHJ: ..ot Frontage Require.nents It was recently pointed out to staff that interpretation of the definitions of "front "lot wi" n" it Section 10.02 of the zoning specifically addressing certain inherent developments. CITY of ORONO based on a strict literal lot line", "f r onL yard", and code, the City has not been variances granted with such Ter:►nically, definition #39 states that the "front lot line" is that boundary of a lot which abuts an existing or do --cated Public street. By this definition, lots fronting on private roads do nc;t have a front lot line. Also, looking at definition #67 which states that a "street" is dedicated public right-of-way, then the definition of "front yard" (def. #77) i.e. "a yard extending ... between the front "street" line of the lot and the required front yard setback line". requires the existence of a front lot line abutting a public road. Taking it one step further, if you don't have a complying front lot ie and don't have complying fs,- yard, you cannot comply with the dpfinit-: n of _ width which ,... defined as "tile maximum hori::ontal % .stance oetween' :C side lot of a lot measured para t front lot line and at she rear of the required f ront yard. Fier a me a to the requirement for frontage on a public road should t care. . 1, when subdividing using private roads. Two : edit : -ia1 situat.i( ns arise out of this, both technically requiring v3--' -e, See Exhibit A) First, a 2-lot subdivision where a narrow C r 1 dlatted to provide access to the rear lot. Since by definition t width is mean red a the "rear of the required front yard", and by do cion the front yard i, measured from the street right-of-way, in a cas,: where the required front yard is 50' the lot width at 50' back frrm the street may still be very narrow arid within that corridor. From a nract.ica1. standpoint, i the past the council has looked for the required t w40th at the bui1j.:n9 site ather than at the rear of the required .)nt yard, yet this Is actually a -.,ariance which shou' , ► .2 addressed. Secondly, a case where there is no `rontage on eithi= a public ,ad or private road, and access is by easeme. t thrcugh the front lot, variances need to be addressed. Realize, that Section 1 1 Subd. B states that "each lot shall f....,-e on a public street or ap ro .te private easemen ". Tnis does not Y-Ti -e the need for variances because Section 10.0'Subd. 2 s' t.es that whe re is a conflict within the code, tie more restrictive provisions appl- Finally, consider the Idstrom case. The frontage variances ...,ld apply to lot 2 which fronts only on a private road, but the access i.; int .nded to be from the south can an easement; wl,'-•h toundarieg will require the 50' front and tear setbacks, which will -" irk 30' 'e setbacks? Presumably, the cont setback wi' tie measured from the p- v ,_e t::;ad.