09-08-2014 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 8, 2014 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 25 (6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-0027 – VARIANCES, Continued) Gaffron stated the 50-foot segment is in all definitions of the code. The lowest point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent would be considered the toe. Gaffron indicated according to the definition, part or all of the features should be located in the shoreland area, which it does. The slope should also rise at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body, which it also does. The last requirement is whether the slope from the toe to the bluff at a point 25 feet or above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater. Gaffron indicated the answer is no because the toe of the bluff must first be determined. Gaffron stated if any point on the bluff meets the criteria for a toe, Staff would have the impossible task of trying to find where to start the measurement. Gaffron stated the cross-section that was shown on the overhead has no place on the slope that is above the 30 percent grade line. As a result, Staff’s conclusion is that it is not a bluff. Gaffron indicated there are portions of it that are greater than 30 percent slope but do not start at the toe, which is the key element of the analysis. In addition, the slope must drain toward the body of water, which it does in this case. Printup moved, Bremer seconded, to extinguish the Special Lot Combination Agreement due to the fact that the lots are not contiguous the vacant lot has a sewer stub, and its own PID number. McMillan asked what would happen if the motion passes to extinguish the Special Lot Combination Agreement and the variance does not pass. Mattick stated at this point the Council is considering extinguishing the Special Lot Combination Agreement and that there will then need to be a discussion about the merits of the variance following that. Mattick stated there would be two separate motions at this point. Levang asked if one follows the other. Mattick stated they do not. Gaffron stated if the Special Lot Combination Agreement is extinguished and a variance is not granted, the applicants would have a non-buildable lakeshore lot that is not attached to any lot. Levang asked if the City Attorney would agree that it would become a non-buildable lot. Mattick stated it would be as it is being proposed by the applicants currently given the average lakeshore setback line. Mattick stated if the agreement is terminated, the right to have a dock on that lot would go away. McMillan stated that is her concern about doing them separately since it does remove the right of the applicants to have a dock on that lot. Mattick stated the applicants could ask the City Council to re-instate the Special Lot Combination Agreement for the purposes of a dock.