Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />I <br />• �J <br />i <br />i 1 <br />To: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson , <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: October 19, 1988 <br />Subject: 1990 Ward Ferrell, 3405 Watertown Road - Variance <br />Application - Request to construct a single residence on vacant proper' <br />adjacent to his existing residence. <br />List of Szhibits <br />Exhibit A - Staff Sketch Showing Planning Commission Recommendation & <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Exhibit B - Planning Commission Action Notice Dated 10/3/88 <br />Exhibit C - Planning Commission Minutes of 10/3/88 <br />Exhibit D - Memo & Exhibits of 9/26/88 <br />Planning Comission Recoeendation - <br />This item was referred to the Planning Commission for review upon <br />applicant's request for a revision to his earlier application. The <br />Planning Commission at their October 3rd meeting, recommended on a vote of <br />4-2 to approve a single additional buildable lot for this 2.90 acre <br />property, and further recommended that this be accomplished by legally <br />combining the 1.04 acre parcel and the 0.85 acre parcel, creating a parcel <br />of 1.89 acres in area, leaving the existing house on a 1.01 acre parcel. <br />The Planning Commission felt that from a precedent standpoint, this would <br />be perceived as approval of a lot area variance of .11 acres or 58 rather <br />than granting lot area variances with a subdivision application that would <br />create a new building site. <br />Note that the Planning Commission recommendation of 4 in favor and 2 <br />against for approval of a new building site with 1.89 acres incorporated <br />into it, was the second motion voted on. The initial vote was a motion to <br />approve with the acreage being divided equally between the 2 sites. That <br />motion failed on a vote of 2-3. Noting from the minutes that Cohen's vote <br />of nay on this motion was based on the fact that tie was not in favor of an <br />additional houses on the property, it would appear that Planning Commission <br />was not in total agreement regarding the issue o how the remaining <br />property should be apportioned. <br />