Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> JULY 17, 2000 <br /> • <br /> (#2602 JOHN GRAHAM, Continued) <br /> Stoddard commented it was his understanding the City was attempting to keep away from <br /> easements and request outlots. Stoddard noted this property consists of 5.1 acres, which may not <br /> leave enough room for the creation of an outlot. <br /> Gaffron stated the City typically does not require an outlot on a shared driveway serving two <br /> residences, but tends to look at it differently if there are more houses being serviced by the <br /> driveway. <br /> Stoddard stated that keeping the existing building may need to be reviewed further prior to <br /> approval. <br /> Lindquist inquired whether the two lots would be kept combined for tax purposes. <br /> Graham stated he would like to keep them combined. <br /> Weinberger indicated once they are subdivided, they become two separate tax parcels and <br /> requires a new subdivision application if you were to separate two combined lots. Weinberger <br /> stated the Applicant could consider the option of obtaining preliminary plat approval and <br /> extending that approval every year. <br /> • Graham stated they utilize the building currently for storage. <br /> Kluth noted City Code does not permit an accessory building to exist on a lot without a principal <br /> structure. <br /> Graham noted ownership of both lots would not change. Graham suggested a period of time be <br /> given in which the shed has to be either removed or a principal structure constructed should <br /> ownership of the property change. <br /> Kluth inquired why the Applicants are proceeding forward with the subdivision at this time if they <br /> do not plan to develop the property. <br /> Graham stated they would prefer to have the property subdivided at this time since they are able <br /> to subdivide the property under the existing codes. <br /> Lindquist commented he has concerns with leaving the accessory building on the lot without a <br /> principal structure. <br /> Stoddard indicated requests are sometimes made to the Planning Commission to leave an existing <br /> accessory structure while construction is undergoing but not for an unspecified period of time. <br /> Smith suggested a period of 18 months be given to allow for the lot to be developed, and if the <br /> lot is not developed within that period of time, the shed be relocated elsewhere. <br /> • Graham stated the use of the property will not change at all until the lot is sold. <br /> PAGE 10 <br />