02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Exhibit to City of Orono Variance Application Descriprion of Request We are rcquesring the City to approve a variance for 2455 North Shore L�ri�Te (lot 1) to apply the LR-1A District setback sta.ndards instead of t1�e back lot setback standards. This would be consistent with all of the neighboring prope.rties in the area. A petition was filed for re- platting of this pxoperty on Aug. 25, 1995 per Resolution #3652 in an effort to eJiminate an unnecessarily large and obt�sive cul-de-sac. The reascros far removing the cul-de-sac are referenced on pages 3/4 of 6 ('item 8, A-1� in rhe atta.ched Resolution #3652. Then between Aug. 25, 1995 when the re-platting was petitio�ed for and Dec. 11, 1995 when the final plat was approved per the terms of Resolution #3b53 also atta.ched, tlie Citp classified this property (I.c�t 1) as a back lot subject to the back lot standards. 4n page 5 of 6 of the Resolution #3653 the City granted variances to the back lat standards far lot width, lot area and setbacks for all egisting st�uctures and improvements (#3 of the conditions). When we piarchased the prope�rty,we were conring�ent upon a new surve�� being completed and review with Cfty staff as part o£our due diligence. We were completely unaware o�the existence of resolution #3G53 until Jan. 6, 2016 when Melatue emailed it to us. Our new updated 10/15 Gronberg survey showed 30' side yatd setbacks per LR-1A I7istrict sta.ndards which is what we reiied on to close on Nov. 30, 2Q15. Whcn Gronberg completed the updated survey we gave hun the tide work and capies of related documents in October 201 S. Resolution #3653 recorded as document #6533935 was not part of the title work because the tide company does not nornnally show a resolution that approves a final plat because the plat is recorded showing the conditions of approval. We were unaware that Lot 1 had been classified as a back lot which calls for 150% of the side yard setback in the LR-1A District This takes the 30' side qard setbacks to 45'. The lot is 146.75'wide at the lake and with 45' side yaxd setbacks on ea.ch side it would allow for a 56.75' wide, confarming buiiding pad vs. 86.75' with 30' side setbacks. I have to believe that the City's intent 20+ pears ago was not to create a hardship for this property with a 5b.75' confo+�'�building pad width with 45' setbacks on a lake lat that is 146.75'wi.de. This would be completelp inconsistent with aiap of the surrounding lakeshore properties, which are zone LR-lA with 30' side yard setbacks.