Laserfiche WebLink
MIM TES OF THE <br />oKo.No c'u.mmissio.n .\ieetim; <br />MuniUy. SrpCenbcr 20.2004 <br />6:00 a’clock p.m. <br />(004-3051 Kr«iB aad Julk Fll/pairick. roatinurd) <br />(iundloch iiklicalcd the applicants have met all structure coverage, bkc sctKick. a\cra|:c lakcshorc <br />setback and hardemer requirements I he building inspector and city engineer have reviewed the <br />propvised grading plan and recommended several changes, which the applicants have met <br />(iundlach noted the two neighbors to the south have submitted a letter objecting to the proposed <br />variances. StatThas reviewed the letter in detail, and while stafl'agrees with the neighb«>rs' ptisiiion in <br />theory, a property owner's nght to devehip ebshes with this theory StatThas included excerpts Irom <br />the ('ommunity .Management Plan regarding the (Tty's policies on land development <br />Stair further finds that denial of the varunces would be a significant change in pvilicy as these tvjKs of <br />requests are oHen made and approved, (iundlach indieu.-J there are several neighlwirhtHHls where the <br />(Tty could have prev ented rebuilding in hopes of land conMilidation but never did. StalTis therefore <br />recommending approval of the application. <br />Kevin l‘it/patrick staled based on his review of Planning Coninussion minutes and (Tty Council <br />minutes, it ars that the ('ity has typically approved lot urea, lot width, and side yard setback <br />vanances on 50-fiMit lots in the past, and if the vananccs arc denied, it would be a significant change in <br />policy and would negatively impact this lot as well as the two landowners to the north of this property <br />who also own 50*f«Hit lots and other similar landowners throughviut the (Tty <br />Fit/putrick indicated they have also come to understand through working w ith staff the idea of <br />preservation and other rationale u.sed by the City for when new con.struction happens. Fit/patnek noted <br />the structure was svild as a kiuKk-doun K*cau.se of its faulty electrical system, deteriorating structure, <br />and water in the basement. FTt/patrick staled he hopes their proposed improvements will help bnng this <br />property more into compliance with the (Tty's code. Fit/patnck noted the hardcover is being eliminated <br />in the 0-75' /one and is being reduced in the 75'-250’ /one from .^5 percent down to 2.^ percent. In <br />addition, rc'storation of the takeshore is k‘ing proposed along with improved dtainage in the <br />neighborhiNMl <br />Fit/patrick stated the Community Management Plan outlines the rights of a property owner, with the <br />plan stating that all landowners mast have equal land use opponunities. No landowner should he denied <br />the right to develop his or her land by any stage growth, land banking, or no-growth policy, prov ided the <br />develi'pment can be done consistent w ith the Community Plan. FTt/patnek stated in hi% opinion <br />isolating these lliree lots on West Fake would constitute land banking that would significantly restrict <br />their ni^ts to develop the property as well as the rights of other owners of 50-foot parcels throughout <br />the city. <br />FlU'patrick indicated the second principle that drew his attention contained in the Community <br />Management Plan is the preserv ation of neighborhoods FTt/patnek stated they wae drawn to Orono <br />for Its neighKirhiKHls and schtHiIs and the diversity of htiusing located within those neighb*irhtH*d«. <br />FTt/patnek stated they are m agreement with the statement conuined in the ( ommunity Management <br />Plan that says must of Oruno's existing urban neighborhixtds are homogenous consisting of newer and <br />older homes, intermingled with an occasiorul vacant lot or a large municipal lot. Fhcrc is no single <br />neighborhoixl that is in need of complete reiKwol or rehabilitation. Fit/pa*nck suted the dominant land <br />ownership on one street or complete rehabilitauon of West Lake is contrary to the City's intention. <br />PAGE 15