Laserfiche WebLink
-of *. <br />h. City of ORONCO <br />i' <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <br />The total number of existing developed properties within 1000' of <br />the subject property which are scna 1 ler than 0.22 acres is 6 of 78 <br />(or 8%). The total .umber of existing developed properties <br />within 1000' which are larger than 0.22 acre is 71 or (or 91%). <br />One existing developed property is 0.22 acre in area. Based on <br />the above figures, the proposed building site : sconsidered as <br />inconsistent with developed lot sizes in the surrounding area. <br />12. Approva' of a tariance application requiring a 56% variance <br />to lot area ir. Orono's half -acre zoning district would establish <br />a negative precedent in the future development of the area sur- <br />rounding Lnt subject lot. A re- .ew of the ownership pattern of <br />the remaining vacant lots in the area of radius 1000' surrounding <br />the subject property indicates that at least thirteen vacant lots <br />in the 9,000-10,000 s.f. range exist and could be considered as <br />potential requests for buildability if the current application is <br />apprc.ved. <br />13. The access to this property would r.ecessari Ly be very near <br />the "S-curve" on County Road 19 and 151; any driveway location on <br />the property would be considered ha4ardous. <br />14. The Planning Commission reviewed the application at their <br />May 20, 1985 meeting and recorr ienried denial of the variance based <br />on the following findings: <br />A) Lot does not follow the neighborhood pattern of existing <br />development, being smaller than 91• of the dev«_ioped lots <br />within 1000' of the property. <br />B) Relatively unsafe county road access. <br />C) Applicant had forewarning that lots may )re unbui ldable <br />prior to his purchase. <br />D) Denial consistent v-�' i past denials or vacant <br />substandard lot_ ,f this size <br />E) Property could be combined with adjacent property-s to <br />the cast or south, both of which are substandard in area. <br />F) Intent of the application is cant rary to c.he letter and <br />intent of the arono Comprehensive Plan. <br />G) �7,rantinq of this variance wovid set an adverse pre.ce ent <br />in the City. <br />H) The property fal tc:o short of the zoning stan,lards to <br />juat.ify granting of t. = variancr. <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />