Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #990 <br />October 19, 1988 <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />Staff Reconmendation - <br />In the various aiemos and the exhibits presented to Planning Ccnunission <br />and Council by s-.aff on this revised proposal and the previous "2 <br />additional building sites" proposal dating back to 1985, staff has <br />attempted to fairly present the history and factual basis for the City's <br />common-ownership philosophy and ordinances. Based on that information, it <br />is staff's opinion that approval of this proposal to allow a second <br />residence on a commonly-owned parcel of 2.9 acres in a 2 acre zone, will <br />set a precedent that, given the relatively non-unique circumstances of this <br />application, could result in as many as 22 similar properties being <br />requested for similar consideration. Twenty-two substandard lots being <br />developed in a rural, unsewered area of approximately 1,100 developed, <br />unsewered properties may or may not be significant in maintaining the goals <br />of the City's Comprehensive Plan, depending on the individual <br />characteristics of each of those properties and the intensity of <br />development of those properties in the future. Certainly, allowing infill <br />development of existing substandard common-ownership unsewered lots will <br />not enhance Orono's attempt to keep sewers out of the rural area. It is <br />questionable whether such development will have a significant negative <br />effect. However, approval of this application will likely result in <br />additional similar requests. Council should consider what criteria the <br />City will use in reviewing those requests as they occur. <br />If Council agrees with Planning Commission that it is appropriate <br />given the circumstances of this application that a second house should be <br />constructed on the property, it is staff's recommendation that the property <br />be equally divided into 1.45 acre parcels for the reesnns noted above. <br />Staff feels that the degree of precedent set, i.e. granting each site a <br />27.5% variance, is less precedent-setting than granting a 5.5% variance for <br />a vacant lot and granting a 49.5% variance for the lot with the house on <br />it. <br />A resolution reflecting Council's action on this variance will be <br />drafted and presented for adoption at your next meeting.