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 11 of 34 Morgan Kavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law, stated it is a unique circumstance to have a Special Lot Combination Agreement and that he hopes the Planning Commissioners have had a chance to review the terms of that agreement. Kavanaugh stated there is a disconnect between their interpretation of what that agreement was supposed to do and what it means and Staff’s interpretation. Kavanaugh noted this is not a true subdivision application but rather they are requesting the agreement be terminated. The history of denials is interesting to look at, but as Staff pointed out, there have been changed circumstances since 2001. In addition, Staff acknowledges that but for this agreement, the property owners would be able to build on this lot. Kavanaugh noted there are two separate PID numbers for these lots and they are considered separate for tax purposes. The lakeshore lot has been a lot since 1933 and it is clearly separate in that it is divided by a road. Since the 2001 denial, the MN Legislature has decided to change the standards for lakeshore properties, and in the 2001 denial, the reason why it was denied is because it was not a buildable lot that the applicant wanted to build on. Kavanaugh stated in his view essentially that property owner was strong-armed into signing the agreement in order to keep their dock because they could not have a dock without a structure. Since those circumstances have changed, if this agreement was not in place, the property owners meet all the requirements and they should be able to build on the lot. Kavanaugh stated as it relates to the Special Lot Combination Agreement, Paragraph 7 talks about how the agreement can be terminated. It does not say in the agreement that the only way the agreement is terminated is if you can meet the lot size requirements. The agreement references generally that the property owner would have to make an application to the City for a subdivision in accordance with City Codes or the plat codes. Kavanaugh concurred that the lot size is not met, but everything else in terms of setbacks and the other items outlined in his letter are met. Kavanaugh stated if the MN Legislature had decided not to change the standards for lakeshore lots, it would be a different situation, but since those standards have been changed, the circumstances surrounding these lots have changed. The intent of the agreement at the time was simply to allow the dock to stay there. Kavanaugh stated he would also like to point out the fact that there are buildings on similar sized lots throughout the City. Kavanaugh noted there is a lot just down the street that was just recently sold off with 50 feet of lakeshore that will be built on. In addition, there are other 50-foot lots in that neighborhood and there are other lots in the City that someone has built on and that they are simply asking to be treated equally. Kavanaugh stated he is not entirely sure of the background of the lift station, but it is one of those things that can be worked through as it relates to access. Kavanaugh stated he is not sure why that lift station was put in that location and it is something he would like more information on. Gaffron indicated he did go through some boxes of archives but he did not find any documents that would provide any clue as to why it was specifically put in that location and not somewhere else. Gaffron stated he can only speculate that due to the depth of the lift station, that was where they chose to place it instead of placing it on an easement. Gaffron indicated it is only a 20-foot right-of-way in that location and they did not have a lot of space to put it off to one side. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 11 of 34]