Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Stacy Alness indicated that is correct and is due to the lift station. <br /> Mrs. Meerkins stated she would like it to be clear that she opposes an easement on her property. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. <br /> Landgraver noted there have been additional comments received. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has received two letters that arrived after the packet was delivered. The first letter <br /> is from Glenn Solie and reads as follows: "Melanie, per our conversation, we(Nancy and I)oppose the <br /> request for 1169 North Arm Drive to be separated into two buildable lots. I agree with all comments <br /> already expressed by Claus Weiler and Renee Wilkins(sic) in the attached document. In addition, I have <br /> concerns about the impact of storm water drainage. These are issues that already exist and additional <br /> development would only make this situation worse." <br /> The other letter received is from Jennifer Adams and reads as follows: "I am writing to you in regards to <br /> the proposal to remove the special combination that was applied to the 1169 North Arm Drive property <br /> that combined it with a lakeshore lot on Elmwood Avenue. I am a resident at 1180 Elmwood Avenue and <br /> my property adjoins their property in the backyard. I am unable to attend the meeting this evening due to <br /> a family obligation out of town. I fully support Ryan and Stacy's request to split their lakeshore lot from <br /> their 1169 North Arm Drive property. As I recall,one of the previous owners of the property(Christie) <br /> had wanted to build on the lakeshore lot. At that time, a building was not allowed. So when her request <br /> was denied, she was required to combine the two properties together. Now that the lakeshore lot is <br /> legally a buildable lot and other neighbors have been allowed to sell their lots with the intent to build, I <br /> expect that Ryan and Stacy Alness would be allowed the same consideration. Their subdivision request <br /> should be approved. The lots are still separate lots with separate property taxes and were only combined <br /> by special agreement. Please correct this situation for this family so that they may make full use of the <br /> properties that they own." <br /> Leskinen indicated she is completely opposed to extinguishing the Special Lot Combination Agreement. <br /> Leskinen noted the agreement is a legally binding combination and the previous owner was not required <br /> to sign it. The previous landowner requested approval by the City in order to be able to make the dock <br /> legal and that was the only option the City had to make the dock legal. The parcel had been deemed <br /> unbuildable a number of times prior to the previous property owner's request and the agreement was <br /> entered into and is now part of the chain of title. Leskinen stated it is not a situation where the City is <br /> picking on any particular landowner and that the agreement was fully available to any subsequent buyers. <br /> On that basis, Leskinen indicated she cannot find any good reason to extinguish that agreement in order to <br /> create a substandard lot in Orono. <br /> Lemke noted at that time the lot was deemed to be unbuildable, but since then circumstances have <br /> changed and it would not necessarily, according to Staff, be a substandard lot at this time. <br /> Gaffron stated had there not been a lot combination that makes this entire group of parcels one lot,that lot <br /> likely would be allowed today to be a building site such as the one just to the south,which includes <br /> property across the street from it. Gaffron stated there is no question that but for the Special Lot <br /> Combination Agreement,that lakeshore lot likely would be allowed to be built on. <br /> Leskinen asked if it would be a conforming lot. <br /> Page 14 of 34 <br />