Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 28, 1987 <br />`1188 KAPLAN CONTINUED <br />Councilmember Callahan reiterated his agreement with <br />Councilmember Simes' comments, however, does not feel <br />that the particular lot in question will permit the <br />building of a house due to topography and drainage. <br />Therefore, he is not in favor of approval and recommends <br />recompense for the paid sewer and water fees. <br />Mayor Grabek stated he agreed with the Council in that <br />this is a substandard lot consistent with the <br />neighboring lots. He felt the City confirmed the <br />buildability of the lot by the assessment of sewer and <br />water prior to the zoning change. Based on these reasons <br />the City should not deny the right to build on this lot. <br />Regarding the lot sustaining a buildable house, he felt <br />reasonable restrictions within code requirements could <br />be made. <br />Mr. Karan stated he understood that if the variance were <br />approved, they would still have to comply with <br />restrictions on the type of house that could be built. <br />James Berg reiterated that the neighbors are against <br />approval., <br />City Attorney Blatz recommended that the neighborhood be <br />reviewed to determine at what point the minimum 1 acre <br />lot size would be enforce and how applicable it would be <br />to everybody. She noted that the other cases of common <br />ownership where substandard lot variances have been <br />denied have been in an unsewered area, which is not <br />applicable in this case where the property is sewered <br />and been assessed for sewer. She cited past court <br />decisions. <br />Councilmember Callahan felt that the change in zoning <br />and the fact that lot area variances could be granted in <br />certain instances and rules in common ownership changed <br />do not mean variances must be approved. He felt there <br />were other economic alternatives to the applicant. <br />Councilmember Peterson stated that she was present at <br />the Planning Commission review of this application and <br />heard all of the public and Planning Commission <br />comments. Unfortunately, she would not vote to approve <br />the request for many of the same reasons cited by <br />Councilmembers Callahan and Goetten. <br />City Attoney Blatz recommended that the City Engineer <br />review the property in order to incorporate any <br />pertinent facts in the resolution, particularly if <br />Council denies the request. <br />7 <br />