Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD JULY II, 1994 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />There were no public commenis. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATORS REPORT <br />(#3) a. /^1903 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION <br />OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 3448 <br />b. <^1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL/4620 <br />TONKA VIEW LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3449 <br />Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lemmerman were present. <br />Mayor Callahan explained that the reason he removed this item from the Consent Agenda was <br />because he received a letter from the neighbor and felt this should be commented on prior to <br />approving the resolutions. <br />Mabusth commented that she had asked the neighbor to write this letter prior to the Planning <br />Commission meeting in May because the neighbor had several concerns relating to the proposed <br />lot line rearrangement. Mr. Lemmerman had hoped to do a lot line rearrangement with Mr. <br />Hickey but was unable to reach an agreement between the filing of the first sketch plan review <br />and the completion of the current application, approximately five years. <br />Mabusth noted the new division runs along the natural topographic boundaries. The northern <br />lot has limitations because of bluff areas. The Planning Commission felt they could not deny <br />the application on the basis of the bluff issue because they had encouraged Lemmerman to <br />proceed with his plans prior to knowledge of the bluff impact. They thought it would be better <br />to wait until an application for a building permit was received, knowing there would most likely <br />be a need for variances for encroachment into the bluff area, and they could then consider <br />approval of a building envelope. <br />Mabusth reviewed the conceptual approval granted by Council before discovering the bluff <br />impact issue. The southern elevations are more consistand with the elevation of applicant’s <br />homestead parcel leaving the remainder as a building site to the north. Kelley added that sewer <br />had been assessed to the northern lot and Council had been fairly consistent with allowing <br />sewered lots to be buildable. <br />Hurr noted this was a tax forfeit lot and normally a substandard lot would be required to be <br />combined with an adjacent lot. Mabusth responded that was the policy before the City Attorney <br />advised that when lots are sewered, they should be dealt with separately. <br />¥