My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-1987 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1987
>
02-09-1987 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/3/2026 1:29:35 PM
Creation date
2/3/2026 1:22:54 PM
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.
/
670
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
Zoning File #1090 <br />Notice of Planning Commission Action <br />January 27, 1987 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br />Issue C. Drainage. <br />4. Standard Drainage and Utility Easements shall be <br />dedicated on the plat. <br />5. The existing drainage easement for wetland on Lot 1 <br />shall be shown on the new plat. <br />Issue D. Septic. <br />6. The City has reviewed and accepts the proposed primary <br />or alternate drainfield sites for the primary residence on <br />each of Lots 1 and 2. <br />Issue E. Lot performance standards [10.28, Subd. 5 M I . <br />7. Both lots meet the 2-acre minimum lot area requirement <br />for a single family residence. <br />8. Strictly interpreted, the zoning code requires that <br />every RR-1B lot have 200' of frontage on a public street as <br />measured at the rear of the 50' front yard, the front yard <br />being adjacent to the public street. Lot 1 does not meet <br />this 200' standard and therefore a variance is required. <br />Planning Commission finds that the primary existing access <br />for Lot 1 is (and must be) to Hollander Road, and that the <br />de factc front of the existing primary residence faces <br />Hollander Road, and that the lot width as measured 50' back <br />from and parallel to the do facto front lot line at <br />Hollander Road, exceeds the minimum 200' width. For these <br />reasons, Planning Commission feels that no variance is <br />necessary. (Technically, staff finds that these reasons <br />serve as a justification to grant the necessary variance to <br />the "200' public road frontage" requirement.) <br />Planning Commission further recommended that if the City <br />Attorney finds that Lot 1 is a "through lot" then Planning <br />Commission recommendation is to require the division line be <br />relocated so that Lot 1 does have 200' of width 50' back <br />from County Road 6. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.