11-13-1984 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

euNwrEs Or THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MF;!,,rING HELL) O("'OKER 29, 1984. PAGE: 17 #811 JOHN ERICSON 1629 SHADYWOOD ROAD SUBDIVISION i VARIANCE .;ohn and Barbara Ericson were present. Bruce Goldstein, Ericson's attorney, was present. Zoning Administrator Mabusth state] that Ericson seeks t:ie division of leg -illy comhired substandard lots. Mibusth stated that Lot 3 seeks .an area variance- of l,2"7 sE or 10 p> rcent and a width �aciance of 35 percent. M,ilbust.h stab,:] that :,ot 4 seeks an area variance of 26 pert_ent• and a width variance of 35 percent. 7-)nir1j Administrator: MibL:Sth stated that �,laonin,j .�.4:1•sission 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 ba revieweJ per standards of the subdivision code. Mabusth noted that the City hasn't approved n:.!w subdivisions with variances, and therefore Planning Colnmissio.i denied the application. Bruce Goldstein noted the Ji fferenf:e between L son' R application and the pr,ivious Lonie Fisk application: 1. Ericson's are not new to the City. Eric:son'�s hav-� I red hero. for 40 years, so there isn't a stranger who has picked up t-Y forfeit land. 2. 'lot ie-.lin3 Frith tax forfeit l.anJ, but laud that rias been in the Ericson family since 1940. 3. No neighborhood opposition. Goldstein noted .. t a petition has 'a( -en submitted by Ericson's neighbors who were in favor of toe app* tion. ,k)IJstein noted that t.h� Council is obr.igateu hear testimony upon a request iat i , ani,ju.- _ the individual property. Goldstein stated that it .s ,app! priAte t- look at things in the past or things that might haps�rl. in the future, brit look at the unique-- t,iingi of tn-� property. 1oldr-tein stated tnat tl,.- neighborhood pee tarn is the sane as this proposal. Goldstein stated that the Mn Supre~ne Court have liven some direction on how Cities should look .!fon lakeshore property. njoldstrin slated that in Geryin vs LaSeur C,)unty the following was r.7ted: he &'t t s. to requ t re aen'c , when be ► rng appl ie ! to lakashore prope►.ty, must be applies in a aaanner designe l to ro!cogr i cr the use of ,ne property 2. When deal .ng with lacexhore prer^rl y, standards of the ardinanr-o yhouid tw apj)' � " to avoid absurd +ult•:.