Laserfiche WebLink
0 0 <br /> CITY of ORONO <br /> ti <br /> L )1r �Gti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> 9kESHd4` NO. 3 6 9 0 �. <br /> 10. The above non-conformities and the historic use of the property as one site, as well <br /> as the common ownership which supports the use as a single site, leads Council to <br /> the following conclusion: <br /> a. Each of Lots 10, 11 and 12 is an existing lot of record. None of Lots 10, <br /> 11 or 12 are conforming in lot width or area to the zoning requirements and <br /> none meet the one acre/100' width standard in Section 10.03, Subdivision <br /> 6 (A-2) required for buildability of existing sewered lots of record in <br /> zoning districts of one acre or greater. <br /> b. None of Lots 10, 11 or 12 could be built on without many other variances <br /> even if lot area and width variances were granted. <br /> c. Any lot line rearrangement proposed to realign these three parcels into two <br /> parcels will result in the final lots not meeting the area standards of the <br /> Zoning Code. Therefore such lot line rearrangement is not exempt from <br /> subdivision, but is classified as a Class II subdivision [Section 11.03, <br /> Subdivision 2.65, 2.66] which requires a plat. <br /> d. All plats are required to meet existing zoning regulations at the time of plat <br /> approval. Subdivisions may not increase the overall subdivision density <br /> above the minimum zoning lot area requirements [Section 11.10, <br /> Subdivision 14]. <br /> e. As compared to other properties which have been allowed to replat at <br /> densities higher than those allowed, other cases involved clear and distinct <br /> use of each of the pre-existing properties as separate from the others. In <br /> the current case, however, no such distinction exists because buildings are <br /> over lot lines, buildings on separate lots have made use of shared sewer and <br /> water facilities, the three lots have been used and maintained as a single <br /> property, and the three lots have shared a single driveway. <br /> 11. The fact that the three lots have been kept as three separate tax parcels does not <br /> result in an inherent right of the property owner to have three building sites, or <br /> even two. A subdivision with significant variances is required to make the <br /> property marginally feasible for two building sites. The proposed subdivision <br /> results in lots that do not meet required lot standards. <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br />