My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/24/1989
Orono
>
City Council
>
1989
>
Agenda Packet Cc - regular meeting 7/24/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2025 10:14:48 AM
Creation date
7/15/2025 11:55:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet CC
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
7/24/1989
Retention Effective Date
7/15/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
318
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
■'•y. <br />Zoning File #1420 <br />June 14, 1989 <br />Page 5 of 6 <br />Certainly, dividing a 1.58 acre single tax parcel into 2 <br />lots of 0.62 and 0.96 acre respectively, would be contiary to <br />established City policy. Further, the City has in the past <br />denied lot area variances for individual lots which had been <br />assessed for a full sewer unit, hence the City has established a <br />precedent that previous sewer assessment is not a legitimate or <br />compelling basis in and of itself for granting lot area <br />variances . <br />Notwithstanding the apparent adverse precedent that would be <br />set in granting thxs application. Planning Commission should <br />consider the merits of the proposed building site. What effect <br />does the bisecting driveway easement have on the buildability of <br />Lot 2? From a hardcover standpoint, aside from the variance <br />needed for Lot l*s 250-500' zone, it is certainly feasible to <br />develop a new residence and driveway on Lot 2 that meets the <br />hardcover limitations for Lot 2. Note that it would be consistent <br />and appropriate for the City to require acces via the existing <br />easement driveway, rather than a new curb cut to Vine Place, <br />which is a City road. <br />Finally, consideration should be given to whether or not a <br />setback would be required from the existing easement driveway. <br />Although it is unlikely the applicant would build right up to the <br />driveway, a setback restriction could be included in your <br />recommendation should you consider an approval. <br />Staff Recommendation - <br />Planning Commission is requested to consider the merits of <br />the proposed building site weighed against the precedent that <br />would be set by granting approval. The applicant can create an <br />attractive, albeit substandard, building site that meets the <br />hardcover requirements. At the same time, this creates a <br />r*'bstandard lot for the existing house. Of course the downside <br />risk for the City is that approval would open the floodgates for <br />potentially dozens of requests for creation of substandard lots. <br />If Planning Commission recommends approval, you should <br />address any specific conditions to be placed on Lot 1 or Lot 2, <br />and might include the following findings in support of the <br />approval: <br />1. Lot 2 can be developed without the need for setback or <br />hardcover variances. <br />2. A sewer stub is available for connection, and the <br />property was originally assessed for 2 sewer units. <br />A recommendation for denial might include the following <br />findings:
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.