Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Morgan Kavanaugh,Attorney-at-Law, stated it is a unique circumstance to have a Special Lot <br /> Combination Agreement and that he hopes the Planning Commissioners have had a chance to review the <br /> terms of that agreement. Kavanaugh stated there is a disconnect between their interpretation of what that <br /> agreement was supposed to do and what it means and Staff's interpretation. <br /> Kavanaugh noted this is not a true subdivision application but rather they are requesting the agreement be <br /> terminated. The history of denials is interesting to look at, but as Staff pointed out,there have been <br /> changed circumstances since 2001. In addition, Staff acknowledges that but for this agreement,the <br /> property owners would be able to build on this lot. <br /> Kavanaugh noted there are two separate PID numbers for these lots and they are considered separate for <br /> tax purposes. The lakeshore lot has been a lot since 1933 and it is clearly separate in that it is divided by <br /> a road. Since the 2001 denial,the MN Legislature has decided to change the standards for lakeshore <br /> properties, and in the 2001 denial, the reason why it was denied is because it was not a buildable lot that <br /> the applicant wanted to build on. Kavanaugh stated in his view essentially that property owner was <br /> strong-armed into signing the agreement in order to keep their dock because they could not have a dock <br /> without a structure. Since those circumstances have changed, if this agreement was not in place,the <br /> property owners meet all the requirements and they should be able to build on the lot. <br /> Kavanaugh stated as it relates to the Special Lot Combination Agreement, Paragraph 7 talks about how <br /> the agreement can be terminated. It does not say in the agreement that the only way the agreement is <br /> terminated is if you can meet the lot size requirements. The agreement references generally that the <br /> property owner would have to make an application to the City for a subdivision in accordance with City <br /> Codes or the plat codes. Kavanaugh concurred that the lot size is not met, but everything else in terms of <br /> setbacks and the other items outlined in his letter are met. <br /> Kavanaugh stated if the MN Legislature had decided not to change the standards for lakeshore lots, it <br /> would be a different situation, but since those standards have been changed,the circumstances <br /> surrounding these lots have changed. The intent of the agreement at the time was simply to allow the <br /> dock to stay there. <br /> Kavanaugh stated he would also like to point out the fact that there are buildings on similar sized lots <br /> throughout the City. Kavanaugh noted there is a lot just down the street that was just recently sold off <br /> with 50 feet of lakeshore that will be built on. In addition,there are other 50-foot lots in that <br /> neighborhood and there are other lots in the City that someone has built on and that they are simply <br /> asking to be treated equally. <br /> Kavanaugh stated he is not entirely sure of the background of the lift station, but it is one of those things <br /> that can be worked through as it relates to access. Kavanaugh stated he is not sure why that lift station <br /> was put in that location and it is something he would like more information on. <br /> Gaffron indicated he did go through some boxes of archives but he did not find any documents that would <br /> provide any clue as to why it was specifically put in that location and not somewhere else. Gaffron stated <br /> he can only speculate that due to the depth of the lift station,that was where they chose to place it instead <br /> of placing it on an easement. Gaffron indicated it is only a 20-foot right-of-way in that location and they <br /> did not have a lot of space to put it off to one side. <br /> Page 11 of 34 <br />