Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated he has a difficult time withholding approval based on the previous denials since the two <br /> variances were denied previous to the Special Lot Combination Agreement being entered into, and as a <br /> result,this would technically be the first time that it has come forward. Thiesse noted the City did not <br /> reject the combination but they rejected the fact that it was a buildable lot. If the state had not said that <br /> that was a possible buildable lot and the property owners came in and said they would like to get rid of it, <br /> Thiesse stated he would tell them good luck but that it would be very difficult to get a house on it. <br /> Leskinen noted it is no longer a stand-alone parcel but that it is a separate tax parcel because Hennepin <br /> County will not merge the PID of two noncontiguous properties. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the fact that they are non-contiguous is another anomaly of why they should not be <br /> combined. Schoenzeit noted the only way the original property owner could have a dock was if they <br /> entered into the agreement since a person cannot have a dock without a structure. Schoenzeit stated <br /> currently the City would allow a structure on that lot and that in his opinion the City should severe the <br /> connection between the two lots. Schoenzeit noted the property owners are really not creating a new lot <br /> but are simply restoring what is there,which is an important distinction, and that there are a number of <br /> lots throughout the City that are nonconforming, which may not be the best reason for denial. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the one thing that concerns him is whether the applicants would be able to obtain all the <br /> necessary easements to access the property. Schoenzeit stated access cannot come within a foot of the lift <br /> station and that there should really be ten feet of clearance. If access could be resolved through the <br /> appropriate agreements, Schoenzeit stated in his view the City should allow the property owners to <br /> reseparate the two parcels since the state has already said that a person can build on a substandard lot. <br /> Lemke asked if the lift station is a problem that was created by the City and whether it was put in the <br /> wrong spot. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view the City did not put it in the wrong spot and that it was likely a choice made by <br /> the engineers who designed it in 1970. The City Council apparently approved the lift station knowing <br /> that there was not need for access in that 20-foot right-of-way. <br /> Schoenzeit stated obviously the lift station should be considered a neighbor that this property owner has <br /> to deal with. <br /> Landgraver noted that issue is not before the Planning Commission tonight and that the Planning <br /> Commission has to deal with the Special Lot Combination Agreement. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if this was a clean sheet,the City should not be creating substandard lots but that this is <br /> reseparating something that at one time existed. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not <br /> picking the boundaries and that the lot has a sewer connection and a separate tax ID number. <br /> Leskinen commented the same logic could be used for two adjoining lots that were combined. If the <br /> property owner at some point down the road wanted to reseparate them in order to build a new house,that <br /> would be creating a subdivision. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the other piece in that is the fact that 50-foot lots are still in character with this <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen commented in her view that would set a dangerous precedent. <br /> Page 16 of 34 <br />