Laserfiche WebLink
� o� <br /> O �,,� _ O <br /> �a- C ITY of ORONO <br /> � � �� � \' � �" <br /> r�, :�� G� <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �L`9kESH�4� N0. � � '� ;� . <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 existin�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 /> Page 2 of 6 <br />