Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 16,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> "The terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended, or extinguished and thereafter <br /> Parcel A and Parcel B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by <br /> Grantor to Grantee for approval of a `subdivision' in accordance with the platting code of the City in <br /> effect at the time of such application." <br /> Gaffron noted this condition was carefully and purposely worded to establish not only that it would <br /> require a subdivision process to undo the agreement, but that such a subdivision must adhere to the <br /> platting code in effect at the time of such application. These requirements were specifically put in place <br /> to ensure that such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots conformed to the dimensional <br /> requirements of the code. Lot 7, as a separate lot, is substandard in width and area. It is approximately <br /> one-quarter in acre and 50 feet in width,which is far from meeting the 1.0 acre and 140 foot width <br /> minimum standards of the LR-1B zoning district. <br /> The applicants' attorney has submitted a letter which suggests that because the City has allowed other <br /> similar-sized lakeshore lots to be built on in recent years,that the applicants should be treated equally. <br /> The letter also cites the"practical difficulty" standards for variance review. It is further suggested that <br /> this parcel should be subject to the shoreland provisions of Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subd. le, and that <br /> the provisions of Condition 7 of the agreement were intended solely to allow for a dock on the lake parcel <br /> and not to prevent its future development. <br /> Staff disagrees with the characterizations and offers the following: <br /> 1. It cannot be construed that the City recently has simply allowed development of small lakeshore <br /> lots. The City has, by action of the MN Legislature, been forced to permit residential <br /> development on certain classes of existing lots of record in the shoreland that meet very specific <br /> conditions. It is important to remember that the statute applies to existing lots and not the <br /> creation of new lots. <br /> 2. It is the City's position that the applicants' property by virtue of the Special Lot Combination <br /> Agreement is not similar to other lakeshore lots which do not have this binding covenant that <br /> allows the City to limit their development. <br /> 3. The practical difficulties standard relates to variance applications involving the zoning <br /> ordinance. The applicants are not applying for a variance. This is a subdivision that is <br /> governed by City Code Section 82-48 and Minnesota Statute 462.358. Additionally, the <br /> argument that the agreement was not agreed to by the applicants is erroneous, as it is a <br /> document of record and binding on all future owners of the property. <br /> 4. The lake parcel cannot be considered as a nonconforming single lot of record by virtue of the <br /> Special Lot Combination Agreement which permanently makes it functionally combined with <br /> the off-lake parcel. It no longer retains status as a separate lot and is therefore not subject to or <br /> benefitted by the cited statute provisions. <br /> 5. As noted earlier,the argument that the agreement was intended to"be extinguished in the <br /> event the City allowed development of lots with similar characteristics in the future" is <br /> misplaced. In the event the City Code allowed for the creation of nonconforming lots,which <br /> it does not,this argument might have some merit. If it Staffs position that establishment of <br /> such an onerous process as subdivision approval in accordance with City Codes at the time of <br /> Page 9 of 34 <br />