Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 16, 2016 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 10 of 34  <br />  <br /> such application to merely extinguish a covenant in itself indicates the intent and spirit of the <br /> agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure that the applicant understood that they <br /> were combining two lots into one lot. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted there are a variety of site factors which make development of the property difficult and are <br />as follows: <br /> <br />a. Location of existing municipal sewer lines within the property and the likelihood of existing <br /> sewer easements that would impact the allowable locations of retaining walls; <br /> <br />b. The sanitary sewer lift station centered in the narrow 20-foot right-of-way abutting the <br /> southeast corner of the property which limits access and likely requires easements from <br /> adjoining property owners or the establishment of a new driveway within the right-of-way <br /> entering from the north; <br /> <br />c. The need for an encroachment agreement to allow the driveway in the right-of-way of a <br /> street that has not been opened to public use; <br /> <br />d. Steep topography and the need to manage runoff. <br /> <br />In addition, the lake parcel was never assessed for the sewer unit charge, and such charge would be due at <br />the time of issuance of a building permit if the subdivision is approved. The revised survey received on <br />September 9 relocates the proposed driveway to within one foot of the lift station, which is unacceptable. <br /> <br />Staff would recommend denial of the requested subdivision on the basis that to approve it would violate <br />the provisions of the subdivision code with regards to lot area and lot width. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the property was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement, <br />whether the property, with its current parameters, would be allowed by state code to be built on. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the Special Lot Combination Agreement was not in effect, this lot likely would be <br />buildable under the state statute if it meets certain criteria as a separate lot. Since it consists of <br />approximately 10,600 square feet, it would meet the standards as a single, separate lot. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if this lot was owned in common with the lot directly to the north, which is also vacant, the <br />City would require that the two lots be combined as one lot. The lot to the north is not in common <br />ownership and is owned by the house to the very east of it, so that no longer would apply. Gaffron stated <br />in his view the strange configuration of the lots led to the ownership by someone with an off-lake parcel <br />of a lot that is offset by 100 plus feet from their property in order to gain lakeshore access. Since then, <br />that lot has been considered unbuildable at least twice by resolution and once by withdrawal after <br />recommendation of denial. From a Staff’s perspective, there is no basis to change that finding. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked what would happen if they left the lot combination in place but put the house on the <br />lake lot and left the other off-lake parcel empty. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it would require the terms of the Special Lot Combination Agreement to be revised, <br />which the applicants have not proposed. Gaffron commented it would be an interesting concept, but at <br />this time no one is proposing that. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 <br />Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 10 of 34]