Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON M ARCH 16, 1998 <br />(^5) ^2350 Kc\'in 2nd Lis2 Ols^^nOirn 2nd June Tou'/c • Coniinvicd) <br />Mr. Touve's other daughter noted that lots 55 and 56 are similar to others in the <br />neighborhood and asked for approval as presented Smith informed her that the <br />Commission can only act on what is included in the application She indicated that the <br />application can be tabled to allow the choices to be evaluated Commissioners agreed that <br />the application would likely be denied as proposed. <br />Ms. Touve noted that the neighborhood was not perfect. Berg informed Ms. Touve that <br />this is the time for the Commission to make improvements <br />Olsen said it was also time to correct an error made by the City in the past. She would <br />like to have the ability to sell her property if she so chose She disagreed that the property <br />was ever legally combined as there is no documentation to substantiate it. <br />Smith indicated that the Commission does not always accept Staffs recommendation but <br />based on the information before her, she suggested the applicant work with staff to <br />explore options. Olsen said she has worked with staff for 10 years to no avail and does <br />not believe any additional time will help. <br />Stoddard noted that many properties are substandard. The Commission's role is to make <br />property conform to the zoning. He indicated that further discussion should be held <br />regarding the wetland and driveway, and the applicant should include the Corp of <br />Engineers, MCWD, and DNR in the process as they are the approving agencies for areas <br />that include wetlands. He would like to see this issue resolved before any further <br />recommendations are made. Mabusth concurred. <br />Touve said the Corp of Engineers informed him he could fill areas less than 1/2 acre. <br />Stoddard said the other two entities must also be involved. <br />Olsen noted that the home on Lot 55 was built in the 1920’s and became substandard <br />when the zoning was changed to one acre. Olsen said the non-conformity was not created <br />by her <br />Stoddard was of the opinion that the application as presented would be denied and <br />suggested further discussion include the wetlands and driveway issue. <br />Olsen asked if tt^e problem was with the buildability of the property or substandard size of <br />lots 55 and 56. Berg said these were all issues of concern. <br />Smith informed Olsen that tabling the application would allow her to keep options open. <br />Denial would result in that recommendation made to Council for their action.