Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 7. #05-3160 JUDSON M.DAYTON,825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,LOT LINE <br /> REARRANGEMENT, 8:38 P.M.—9:20 P.M. <br /> Judson Dayton,Applicant, and John Winston,Attorney-at-Law,were present. <br /> Gaffron stated the Applicant is proposing to combine and re-arrange the lot lines among three existing tax <br /> parcels to result in just two tax parcels. Gaffron stated the smaller property at one time was one parcel <br /> but was later split into two parcels. The 21-acre parcel contains an existing residence structure, <br /> guesthouse,barn and various outbuildings. The easterly of the existing smaller parcels contains a cabin <br /> and the westerly of the smaller parcels contains a variety of small outbuildings near the lakeshore. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant would like to,one,combine the two smaller parcels into one five-acre <br /> building site; two,then rearrange the lot line between this combination and the 21-acre parcel to <br /> straighten out that common lot line; and three, formalize a driveway easement through the 21-acre parcel <br /> out to Old Crystal Bay Road to serve the five-acre parcel. <br /> Staff has reviewed this application with the City Attorney and the applicants, and it was concluded that <br /> this could not be done administratively. Gaffron stated although both resulting lots are compliant with <br /> LR-1A minimum width and area requirements, a variety of other zoning and subdivision standards come <br /> into play. <br /> Gaffron indicated this reconfiguration of existing tax parcel boundaries essentially creates a new lot. The <br /> five-acre parcel is considered as a back lot, and this triggers the need to create a formal 30-foot wide <br /> outlot corridor for access in order to be in compliance with the zoning standards. Creation of the <br /> driveway easement is by definition a Class I subdivision and therefore could not be handled <br /> administratively. Further, on the basis that the resulting five acre lot is in fact a `back lot' by definition, <br /> the back lot ordinance requires access to be established via an"access outlot". Creation of an outlot, as <br /> opposed to merely an easement,requires that this two-lot proposal should technically be a plat <br /> subdivision,not merely a lot line rearrangement as proposed. <br /> In Staff's opinion and that of the City Attorney,the zoning code suggests that this proposal requires <br /> platting. However,platting brings into play a variety of other factors, including park dedication, storm <br /> water and drainage,trunk fees, septic testing,wetland delineation, all of which add complexity,time, and <br /> costs to the review/approval process,which the applicant wishes to avoid. The applicant's position is that <br /> he is merely combining two existing buildable lots into one. <br /> Gaffron stated Mr. Winston has indicated that Minnesota Statutes have a provision that allows the platting <br /> authority to waive such requirements in a case where compliance with the platting requirements will <br /> create an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the purpose of the <br /> subdivision regulations. <br /> Gaffron stated issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include the following: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission conclude that a plat is required? Or,would the Planning <br /> Commission recommend waiving the platting requirement because of the various implications, <br /> such as creating substandard setbacks for existing accessory buildings, subjecting the applicant to <br /> PAGE 22 <br />