Laserfiche WebLink
•V?'W'-'k-:*■■■ <br />ng Administrator <br />rom Council <br />sewered <br />>sal, and is requesting a <br />of his three one-acre <br />build a house on each of <br />ll/BB <br />ts of September B, 1988. <br />e applicant's original <br />.s property, a history of <br />d additional pertinent <br />to make a recommendation <br />the Planning Commission <br />smmend approval of one <br />perty, for a density of <br />ons for the property is <br />id combinations so that <br />>ne acre parcels, deny <br />t the new building site <br />■j; <br />’•V' " • ■ ^ <br />■■H <br />i] <br />u- <br />S.A* :•> .ir^ -V»-1%k.<as <br />ii- <br />^•1 <br />T- •• <br />.r <br />I; <br />. .= • <br />^' V <br />m <br />m ■ <br />Zoning File #990 <br />September 27, 1988 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />C) Same >^ 3 above except attach the denied lot to the existing <br />residence property. <br />D) Same as above except leave the denied lot uncombined with <br />either the approved acre or the existing house acre. <br />Please refer to the survey/sketch attached as Exhibit N/E of 5/19/87, <br />about 11 pages back in your packet. This indicates that the parcel with <br />the existing house is about 1.01 acre, the next vacant parcel to the west <br />is about .85 acre, and the western most parcel is about 1.04 acre in area. <br />The applicant has shown that technically there is room to provide for <br />septic systems within the property, however, the sites wr-Id be quite <br />limited in potential for development with more than just a .simple single <br />family residence. Staff is on record as suggesting that constructing <br />houses on each of the two vacant lots will not ultimately further Orono's <br />attempt to keep municipal sewers out of the rural area. Past Councils have <br />given applicant at least some suggestion that two 1% acre parcels, i.e. <br />allowing one additional building site on the entire three acre property# <br />would be worthy of consideration. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Again, staff would ask that you review the packet of Information <br />provided. If Planning Commission feels that a variance to allow one <br />additional building site on the three acre property is justified, staff <br />would recommend that a lot line rearrangement and combination take place so <br />that the existing residence and the new building site will each contain 1.5 <br />acres of land. Should Planning Commission recommend such an approval, <br />additional appropriate conditions include: <br />A. Payment of standard Park Fee at the time the building permit is <br />issued. <br />B. Access location for the new buildable lot shall be subject to City <br />approval. <br />C. The applicant shall file an application for a lot line <br />rearrangement, and this variance approval shall not take effect until <br />such time as the lot line rearrangement has been completed. <br />>: ■ <br />»i <br />r <br />CITY OP <br />P.O. Bo <br />Crystal <br />TXPB OF <br />DATS OF <br />CODHCII. <br />Cou <br />Commissi <br />Thi <br />October <br />will be <br />Pli <br />your rep <br />If : <br />are ava: <br />approve 1 <br />.5