My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
04-24-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 8:50:26 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 8:45:50 AM
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.
/
222
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
#2563 - Sketch Plan Comments <br />March 17,2000 <br />Page 5 <br />In practice, the City has commonly treated lot line reanangements between two developed <br />parcels as a Class I subdivision, not requiring a plat (which adds to the applicant’s costs) even <br />when the resulting lots have not met zoning district lot area and width standards. This practice <br />has been a relatively efficient method for persons to transfer an excess portion of their property- <br />to an abutting neighbor. In most if not all cases, however, such "Lot Line Reanangement <br />Subdivisions" have not allowed a conforming property to become non-conforming as a result of <br />selling off a portion to the neighbor. <br />A Class II or III subdivision, requiring a plat, is virtually always required when creating new <br />building sites from a single parcel or group of parcels. The only exception is when the resulting <br />1 jts are each 20 acres or larger, such as the Steve White subdivision further west on Bayside <br />Road. It is uncommon to take three or more tax parcels and convert them into just two lots;, <br />although on West Lake Street an owner of four adjacent ta.x parcels was allowed via combination <br />and lot line reanangement to end up with two substandard building sites where two developed <br />lots with existing homes had already existed. In that case, it could be argued that the owner had <br />rights to two lots established by the existence of two homes and the prior payment of two sewer <br />assessments. <br />Analysis of Filbrandt Situation <br />Filbrandt could conceivably create from his 26 acres, two lots, one with the existing home and <br />one undeveloped, each having 300 feet of frontage on Bayside Road, but one would fall short of <br />the 5-acre requirement, which automatically requires a variance, making this a ‘flexible zoning’ <br />situation and therefore making it at least a Class II subdivision requiring a plat. Section 11.03, <br />Subd. 14(A) states under the heading "Special Requirements for Plats" as follows: <br />"A. Zoning Regulations. Every plat shall conform to existing zoning regulations and <br />subdivision regulations applicable at the time of final plat approval. Variances shall not <br />be approved to increase the overall subdivision density above the minimum lot area <br />requirements of the applicable zoning district and this Chapter." <br />The minimum lot area requirements of the RR-IA zoning district are 5 acres of dry buildable <br />land, of which two acres must be contiguous with the identified building site (so the three <br />required additional acres must be within the lot but could be separated by a wetland). This gives <br />Filbrandt some potential use of the northerly portion of the site if he can acquire enough dry <br />buildable to result in 10 dry acres total.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.