04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1264 Page 2 Discussion - The SmicjaF- rf-auest a lot area variance in order to construct a residence on this 1.37 acre lot in single Separate ownership. At the time the Swan Lake Addition was )latted in 1959, City ordinances required lot sizes at least 25,CuJ s.f. in area and at least 120' in width at the building line. This property was subsequently rezoned to 1 acre lot size and 14C' width which was in effect until 1975 when the area was rezoned to 2 acre minimum lot size, 200' width. The lots individually appeared to meet the coee standards in effect at the time of subdivision, and are considered in �embinatiun as a single record lot. The two lots have been owned in common since 1974 or prior, but have not been commonly owned with any adjacent properties. Since the property has the capability to support a primary and alternate septic system, it staff's opinion that this is a viable building site. Staff feels there will be no adverse impact on the character of the neighborhood, since this parcel is equal to or larger that; most neighboring developed lots on Cygnet Place. ')ne issue for discussion is the existence of a 12'x '.6' shed shown on the survey. Once the house is placed as shown on the survey, that shed will be in a non -conforming location. A condition of variance approval should be that that shed be relocated to a conforming location behind the two front lines of the house. A second condition of approval -.mould be that the driveway access is required to be on Cygnet Place, and located at least 100' south of the center line of Watertown Road, but the driveway and access must also be located north of the primary and alternate drainfield sites. Staff would note that given the proposed loca*ion of the house, any accessory structure such as a swimming pool, gazebo, detached garage etc. would be restricted to the small area to the east and south of the house. Merely as a point of interest, staff would for the record differentiate this situation from that of application #990, Ward Ferrell located a quarter -mile to the west on Watertown Road. The Smie ja property has since bef^re adoption of the 2 acre zoning, been in single separate ownership as a combined lot not owned by any adjacent property owners. In Ferrell's case, where he has three separate but adjacent 1 acre lots in common ownership, Orono codes do not grant him the right to build on each of the substandard 1 acre lots, whereas those same codes have long allowed the grantinq of a variance for substandar(' lots that are not owned in common with adjacent de✓el.oped property. The rationale behind this is that a person with a residence and an adjacent vacant, lot has the use of that. vacant lot as being accessory to the existing residence. In the case of a lnt in single separate ownership, if a house was not al lowed to be bu.,t, the property owner could argue that he is allowed no rf,asonal le use of his property and therefore the City miqht be found •�Y trite curt to owe damages for a "taking" of property.