Laserfiche WebLink
MLNUTES OF TIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday. May 21,2001 <br />(MI-2675 DON-NA LILE, CONTINUED) <br />towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan <br />demonstrating how they plan to meet tiie setback and hardcover standards. <br />Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an anal>'sis done of other similar lots for <br />applieations in the future. <br />Caffron slated most lots of this si/c currently have a house erected on the property or have been <br />considered unbuildable for years. GafTron stated the Planning Commission could sec similar lots in <br />the future w hen those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. <br />Stoddard stated he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving an application where <br />there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only SO feet wide where 140 feet is <br />required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a dock for the lakeshorc lot. <br />Kluth inquired how a prospective buyer might become awnre that the lot has been deemed <br />unbuildable. Kluth noted that decision by the Council is not Piled with the County. <br />Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s. the City Council did not Pile variance approvals or denials. <br />Since that time the City has Piled them on the chain on title. The property owner could Pind out that <br />information by asking the City to review that Pile. <br />Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the past <br />w ith no icwer <br />Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the propcrlv, there was no unit <br />charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildable at the <br />time the sewer was installed, the City more than likely would not have assessed them the SO fool <br />frontage. GalTron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the Applicant would <br />owe the upilaied unit and plant charge. <br />Smith inquired if a small cabin had e.xisted on this lot at the time sewer was installed in this area, how <br />that property would lutve been treated. <br />Gaffron stated they wt)uld have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with a unit <br />charge and a plant charge. <br />Stoddard inquired whether there is a dixk currently on the lakeshore lot <br />Roesler stated the dock is not legal. Roesler staled her main purpose • purchasing the property was <br />to construct a residence on the lot. <br />Stoddard inquired if the Pirst part of the application were tabled and the second part approv ed, whether <br />the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the Pirst part of the application with the City <br />Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of <br />this application. <br />PAGE 11 <br />i