01-16-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2099 January 10, 1996 Page 8 Commission is fully aware that the zoning code [Section 10.06, Subd. 3(A-4)] states that ''economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter". Planning Commission should refer to Section 10.06, Subd. 3, Section 10.08, and Section 11.02, Subd. 10, cll attached, re£irding the standards for granting variances. One additional factor Planning Commission may wish to consider is the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding neighborhood. Exhibit 1 is a topographic sur\ey of the neighborhood with plat overlay, indicating tl.e locations of existing residences and the existing lot sizes. It is obvious from that map that the average lot size in the neighborhood is approximately 1 acre, even though this is a 2 acre zone. However, e.xisting properties to the south, west and north of this neighborhood have substantially larger lots. And, even though the zoning district boundaiy between the 1 acre and 2 acre zones is nearby, this property does not abut the 1 acre zone, and individually would not be a reasonable extension of that zone without including adjacent properties on the west side of Westlake Street. There may be a pattern started in this neighborhood by the Blake Bichanich project at 332 Westlake where two 0.7 acre lots were combined to create a 1.4 acre building site. It is not beyond comprehension that additional properties along this shoreline could be purchased together and combined to create more usable building sites. It would be consistent if Lots 10, 11, and 12 were combined into one building site. RczoniDg Potential The City Council has over the last twenty years consistently refused to rezone existing neighborhoods in the 2 acre zone when they are provided with municipal sewer. The result is a number of sewered neigi»/- hoods with substandard lots (in some cases 1/4 to 1/2 acre lot sizes) which are still required to meet the 2 acre zoning standards. This results in the need for a variance even when an addition or accessoiy building consistent with the neighborhood is proposed. It can be argued that rezoning should occur in these areas. However, the opposite argument is that rezoning these leighborhoods would potentially result in higher density as the interspersed larger lots could perhaps then subdivide, res Uting in additional homes which create higher density. While such densitv' might be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, it would not be consistent with Orono's low density philosophy. Alley Along South Boundary It appears that a 10’ alley was originally platted along the south boundary of Lot 12, leading from Westlake Street to the lakeshore. Apparently a canal was also dug at some past time parallel to the alley, connecting Westlake Street to Smbbs Bay via a water route. It would appear likely, then, that if the portion of alley still above the 929.4 water level and adjacent to Lot 12 is vacated, its ownership would revert to Lot 12. As it currently exists, proposed Lot 2 abuts the lake only at its east end and not along its southerly boundary.