Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 18,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiess asked how the lot north of the proposed house is identified. <br /> Gaffron indicated Lot 6 has a Special Lot Combination Agreement with the house,which says that those <br /> two parcels have to be sold together and cannot be separated. <br /> Landgraver stated in evaluating what is before the Planning Commission tonight, they have to consider <br /> those two lots as one but that the other lot is a stand-alone lot. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. <br /> Thiesse noted the ordinance says that the distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on <br /> adjacent lots. Thiesse stated that is still a lot. <br /> Gaffron stated that lot is being considered as a separate lot with the same legal rights as other 50-foot lots. <br /> Thiesse asked if they are separate tax parcels. <br /> Gaffron stated they are, and that once there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement,the City looks at it <br /> as having virtually the same legal aspects as if it were legally combined by the county across the road. <br /> Landgraver stated that is why they are able to put a dock on that lot. <br /> Thiesse stated the ordinance says the adjacent lakeshore lot. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the area that would be considered the adjacent lakeshore lot. <br /> Lemke asked if the owner of Lot 6 would be able to construct a house on Lot 6. <br /> Gaffron stated they would have to go through the same process of un-combining the Special Lot <br /> Combination. <br /> Thiesse stated then their average setback is set way back, which does not require a variance. <br /> Leskinen noted the attorney for the applicants stated that this lot is buildable but for. Leskinen asked in <br /> what way, shape or form is this lot buildable except for the average lakeshore setback since it is a <br /> substandard lot. <br /> Gaffron stated the Minnesota Statutes three or four years ago gave special dispensation to existing lots of <br /> record. Gaffron stated if this becomes an existing lot of record, it meets the minimal lot standards <br /> established by the DNR for a lakeshore lot that is in the Shoreland and would meet the area and width <br /> standards. City Code says that this lot, by virtue of the fact that it would be considered a single, separate <br /> lot, does not need area and lot width variances if it meets the minimum DNR standards or a minimum of <br /> them. <br /> Leskinen asked if it needs a sewer stub to meet those standards. <br /> Gaffron indicated sewer is available on the property but there is no easement. Gaffron stated the <br /> Applicants have not paid for the stub itself but they have paid for the footage. Gaffron stated there would <br /> Page 15 of 33 <br />