10-29-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL. MEETING HELD OCTOBER 29, 1984. PAGE 17 #811 JOHN ERICSON 1629 SHADYWOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE John and Barbara Ericson were present. Bruce Goldstein, Ericson's attorney, wa.; present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Ericson seeks the division of legally combined substandard lots. Mabusth stated that Lot 3 seeks an area variance of 2,283 sf or la percent and a width variance of 35 percent. Mabusth state,] that Lot 4 seeks an area variance of 26 percent and a width variance of 35 percent. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stited that Planning Commission asked for. Council's conceptual direction on an interpretation of the code. Mabusth stated that Council at that time told Planning Commission to treat the application as a typical subdivision application to be reviewed per standards of the subdivision code. Mabusth noted that the City hasn't approved new subdivisions with variances, and therefore Planning C oiti-nission denied the application. Bruce Goldstein noted the di `fecence between Ericson's application and the previous r,unie Fisk application: 1. Ericson's are not new to the City. Fricson's have lived here for 40 years, so there isn' t a stranger who has picked up tax forfeit land. 2. 'lot dealing with tax forfeit land, but land that has been in the Ericson family since 1940. 3. No neighborhood opposition. Goldstein noted that a petition has been submitted by Ericson's neighbors who were in favor of the application. Goldstein noted that the Council is obligated to hear testimony upon a request that is unique to the individual property. Goldstein stated that it is inappropriate to look at things in the past or things that might happen in the future, but look at the unique things of the property. .;oldstein stated that the neighborhood pattern is the same as this proposal. Goldstein stated that the Mn Supreme Court have given some direction on how Cities should look upon lakeshore property. 'Goldstein stated that in Gervin vs LaSeur County the following was noted: 1. The lot size requirement, when being applied to lakeshore property, must be applied in a manner designed to recognize the use of the property. 2. when dealing with lakeshore property, standards of the ordinance should be applied to avoid absurd results.