07-10-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 10, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (##06 -3196 McNAUGHTON /HAMM, CONTINUED) Sansevere inquired what the hardship is to make the other lot smaller and to grant a lot area variance Korstad stated the hardship would be that you have a lake access property that is difficult to use because it has trouble meeting the LMCD requirements and has trouble accessing the other part of the property because of the county road and the regional rail right -of -way that exists. Korstad stated that lot really is two separate lots. Sansevere inquired whether that is a legitimate hardship. Brokl stated in his opinion this is not a hardship issue and that in this case the Blue Hill subdivision Lot 1 was a nonconforming lot to begin with and only through the special lot line rearrangement did it meet the City's standard for lot area. Brokl stated the city generally would not look at a separate outlot across two separate right -of -ways as being contiguous and that a hardship does not need to be demonstrated to undo the old agreement. Approval of the two variances would not be necessary at this time since those variances would be applied for at the time the applicant decides to construct on those lots and that the critical issue before the Council at this time is the lot line rearrangement. Sansevere moved, Peterson seconded, to approve the lot line rearrangement for 1391 Fox Street and 1401 Shoreline Drive. McMillan inquired whether any type of restrictions should be placed on the undeveloped plat. • Brokl recommended the Council give conditional approval at this time that does not include variances. Sansevere stated his motion does not include approval of any variances. Brokl stated a lot area variance would need to be applied for at a later time. Gaffron pointed out the existing buildability of the conforming lot would be eliminated with this approval. Murphy inquired about the driveway and whether any conditions should be placed on the driveway. Brokl stated that would be part of the building stage. Korstad stated one of the issues has been that the McNaughtons would like to be able to build on their lot and that the Council's pending action would result in neither of these lots being able to be built upon, which is a step backwards. Murphy stated the applicants would simply need to apply for a variance. Korstad stated in his view the best approval process would be for the Council to adopt the current motion, have the applicant file a plat showing the lot line rearrangement, and then file a variance application. PAGE 8