10-21-2013 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 34 “The terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended, or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and Parcel B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by Grantor to Grantee for approval of a ‘subdivision’ in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application.” Gaffron noted this condition was carefully and purposely worded to establish not only that it would require a subdivision process to undo the agreement, but that such a subdivision must adhere to the platting code in effect at the time of such application. These requirements were specifically put in place to ensure that such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots conformed to the dimensional requirements of the code. Lot 7, as a separate lot, is substandard in width and area. It is approximately one-quarter in acre and 50 feet in width, which is far from meeting the 1.0 acre and 140 foot width minimum standards of the LR-1B zoning district. The applicants’ attorney has submitted a letter which suggests that because the City has allowed other similar-sized lakeshore lots to be built on in recent years, that the applicants should be treated equally. The letter also cites the “practical difficulty” standards for variance review. It is further suggested that this parcel should be subject to the shoreland provisions of Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subd. 1e, and that the provisions of Condition 7 of the agreement were intended solely to allow for a dock on the lake parcel and not to prevent its future development. Staff disagrees with the characterizations and offers the following: 1. It cannot be construed that the City recently has simply allowed development of small lakeshore lots. The City has, by action of the MN Legislature, been forced to permit residential development on certain classes of existing lots of record in the shoreland that meet very specific conditions. It is important to remember that the statute applies to existing lots and not the creation of new lots. 2. It is the City’s position that the applicants’ property by virtue of the Special Lot Combination Agreement is not similar to other lakeshore lots which do not have this binding covenant that allows the City to limit their development. 3. The practical difficulties standard relates to variance applications involving the zoning ordinance. The applicants are not applying for a variance. This is a subdivision that is governed by City Code Section 82-48 and Minnesota Statute 462.358. Additionally, the argument that the agreement was not agreed to by the applicants is erroneous, as it is a document of record and binding on all future owners of the property. 4. The lake parcel cannot be considered as a nonconforming single lot of record by virtue of the Special Lot Combination Agreement which permanently makes it functionally combined with the off-lake parcel. It no longer retains status as a separate lot and is therefore not subject to or benefitted by the cited statute provisions. 5. As noted earlier, the argument that the agreement was intended to “be extinguished in the event the City allowed development of lots with similar characteristics in the future” is misplaced. In the event the City Code allowed for the creation of nonconforming lots, which it does not, this argument might have some merit. If it Staff’s position that establishment of such an onerous process as subdivision approval in accordance with City Codes at the time of Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 9 of 34]