My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-20-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
10-20-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 12:25:24 PM
Creation date
4/6/2015 1:35:14 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
470
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 15, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 41 of 59 <br /> <br />City’s hardcover ordinances. Schoenzeit noted the house would be right in the middle of the average <br />lakeshore setback asked how that would be addressed given the fact that that is not allowed. <br /> <br />Haugen stated for many, many years there was no setback and then it became 0-75 feet from the lake. <br />Haugan stated the sight line is 125 feet. Haugan stated if that cannot be changed, then the property is <br />absolutely 100 percent is worthless because the property is approximately 120 feet. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated if he is acknowledges that, then why is he here. <br /> <br />Haugen stated if someone owns property, no governmental entity can render it worthless. Haugan stated <br />without an average lakeshore setback, it is worthless and it effectively has been taken. <br /> <br />Berg noted every other landowner in Orono has to abide by the average lakeshore setback. Berg asked if <br />this situation is somewhat unique that this property should not be held to that standard. <br /> <br />Haugen stated when there was once a house on the property and it is currently a legal lot, a city cannot <br />pass laws to make it impossible for someone to use it for housing. Haugan stated if the house were still <br />there, this conversation would not have happened and the house would have been grandfathered in. <br /> <br />Berg stated with new construction or if the house were abandoned, all bets are off, and that they would <br />then be having this discussion. <br /> <br />Haugen stated the neighbors in question each have three lots that were combined but that does not mean <br />they are not allowed to have one 50-foot lot. <br /> <br />Leskinen noted at one time this lot was platted as a commons lot. <br /> <br />Haugen stated no one seems to know what that means and the property was never given or dedicated to <br />the public or anyone. Haugan stated the property was owned privately as far back as 1910 by people who <br />constructed a home on it and lived there. Haugan stated he is not sure whether anyone knows what the <br />commons designation means. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/20/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 09/15/2014 <br />[Page 41 of 59]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.