Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,October 14,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #13-3629 RYANAND STACYALNESS, 1169 NORTHARMDRIVE—SUBDIVISION, <br /> Continued) <br /> Printup stated if the City is looking to draw a straight line and they are just a little bit off in the beginning, <br /> that line becomes further off decades down the line. Printup stated the City is perpetuating something that <br /> is special or weird with these two lots that are not physically together. Printup indicated that is the issue <br /> he is wrestling with and why he can rest very easy with separating the two. <br /> McMillan stated regardless of the state statute,the lake lot is not able to be developed due to the Special <br /> Lot Combination. If the two lots were separated,the lots still may be unbuildable due to access because <br /> in her view access is going to be very difficult to achieve. McMillan stated given what she has read to <br /> date, it may be difficult to gain an easement from one of the neighbors. <br /> McMillan stated the state statute has been very difficult for Orono since it has gone against the City's <br /> philosophy and has allowed a number of lots to be developed that the CiTy otherwise would not have <br /> allowed to be developed. Building houses on substandard lots creates difficulty with runoff,density, and <br /> traffic issues even if they meet the hardcover and side setback requirements. <br /> McMillan commented this lot unfortunately is difficult to access, and that with those two issues taken <br /> together, she finds it hard to believe that separating the lots will work. McMillan stated in her view the <br /> intent in 2001 was to provide dock access and that that is clear from the staff reports and minutes. <br /> McMillan stated she has a hard time seeing the value of the City attempting to go down a path of <br /> separating the two lots given the access issue and that in her view it is a very difficult site to develop. <br /> Printup stated joining it together a number of years ago created this problem by allowing something that <br /> was illegal to begin with. <br /> McMillan pointed out it was created for the benefit of the property owner at the time. <br /> Printup stated the intent was to make a benefit for the property owner but that it calls for a process that <br /> would probably never be allowed. <br /> McMillan stated at the time the benefit was to allow the property owner access to the lake. The City <br /> Council was not aware that in 2010 a state statute would be passed that would make this discussion <br /> possible. <br /> Anderson noted the City's codes and requirements have not changed to make the two lots buildable. <br /> Printup stated as it relates to Question No. 1, if the Special Lot Combination Agreement was not in place, <br /> the Council would not be having this discussion. Printup stated in his view the language is weird. <br /> Levang stated as was pointed out in Staff's report,the words Special Lot combination is used in the City <br /> for unique situations and was not created specifically for this situation. <br /> Printup commented it was created for lots that are not similar to this situation. Printup indicated he is <br /> okay with separating the two lots but that he is not sure whether it requires this agreement to be <br /> abandoned or another approach. Printup suggested that perhaps the Council look at the access issues first. <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br />