PC Minutes 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MARCH 21, 1994 0 (#'n #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN - cont. Members questioned why the bluff was not addressed at the time of the original subdivision review. Mabusth advised prior to filing the subdivision application, the surveyor advised of boundary problems and that torrens department would require a plat. The City would have accepted a simple metes and bounds division. Because of the costs involved, the applicant chose to first file the subdivision application and receive conceptual direction from Council before filing area variance, completing formal plat and possible registration of lands. She added that the bluff issue became effective in April of 1993. She did not get topographic information until the night of the February meeting. Nolan asked if this lot were within 1000' feet of shoreline since the bluff issues are part of the Shoreland Regulations. Mabusth confirmed that the property is within 1000' of Forest Lake. Members felt this ordinance was a little too restrictive. Marsha Hickey, 4640 Tonkaview Road, stated that when they moved in they were under the assumption that lots were to be 1 acre or greater. Mabusth confirmed this was a 1 acre zoning district. Hickey objected to the proposed lot being less than 1 acre. Lemmerman replied that he had attempted to do a lot line rearrangement with the Hickeys in 1986 but they were not willing to proceed so he decided to move ahead with a different approach. Schroeder noted this area had many lots that were less than 1 acre. Nolan stated the lot was considered a buildable lot prior to the proposed lot line rearrangement. They were trying to make the lot a better lot for building. The adjacent developed lot is small at 75' x 100'. Schroeder asked if Lemmerman planned to build on the proposed lot. Lemmerman responded that he did not but wanted to sell the property as a buildable lot. Mabusth explained that the building envelope is defined by the visual top of bluff. Lemmerman noted that City sewer was available to this lot which was different than the previous application. A 30' x 80' building envelope exists. Mabusth reviewed comments made by Ceil Strauss of the DNR who had no problem with accepting the visual top of bluff. She explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a lot area variance and it should be noted that there is a bluff impact zone within this property and that a building envelope is defined. 10