10-24-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #990 May 29, 1987 Page 4 of 4 Staff has been able to locate no record that a variance was ever granted to Ferrell in 1959, and has no record that the City ever even reviewed his subdivision. The City adopted a platting code in 1955, the wording of which indicates a plat was required for Ferrell's division, however, the Council minutes for 1958-59 and 1960 were reviewed ana no mention of a plat or subdivision by Ferrell was recorded. Staff believes that the City 1:kely never reviewed Ferrell's divisions or they might have recognized the substandard nature of Parcel 2, and if he had platted as the 1955 Code appea:-s to require, he would not have been allowed to consider the_ road right-o"-way as part of his lot areas. Staff Recoo ndation - Attached is a resolution for denial of the variances requested by Mr. Ferrell to construct 2 additional houses on his p.operty. The Council's procedural options are as follows: 1. Adopt the denial resolution as drafted. In this case, Mr. Ferrell would have to wait 6 months before he could reapply for the variances, if he so wished, -er Section 10.08, Subdivision 5. 2. Table the application indefinitely. This would be advisable only if the applicant requests a tabling based on add.itio,.al substantial. evidence he wishes to present. This tabling did occur in June 1986 and applicant presented no new relevant evidence when the item was reheard in May 1987. 3. Allow the applicant to revise his application to a 1-additional- building-site request, if he wishes, which some members of Council have indicated would be looked upon more favorably. In this case, Council could sither cease action on the denial resolution, or adopt a revised denial resolution which denies the 2-additional lot request but finds that the revised request is a change of conditions which was recommended for approval by the Orono Planning Commission at their February 18, 1986 meeting, henc -he 6-month reapplication moratorium woul-' be waived. Allowing such a revision of the application does not cu„unit the Council to approving the 1- additional lot request. Staff would recommend that i� applicant does wish to revise his request, the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for further review. Staff we '.d suggest the following language be incor^prated into the resolution as iinding #41 if you choose Option 1 above: 41. At the City Council meeting of June 8, 1987, the applicant was advised of the options to a) table if he has additional substantial evidence to submit; or b) to revise his application to request only 1- additional lot rn the 2.9 acre parcel instead of 2-additional lots; or c) choose neither and waive any right to further review of this application by tLe City Council. The applicant chose to waive further Council review of the application.