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 16 of 34 Thiesse stated he has a difficult time withholding approval based on the previous denials since the two variances were denied previous to the Special Lot Combination Agreement being entered into, and as a result, this would technically be the first time that it has come forward. Thiesse noted the City did not reject the combination but they rejected the fact that it was a buildable lot. If the state had not said that that was a possible buildable lot and the property owners came in and said they would like to get rid of it, Thiesse stated he would tell them good luck but that it would be very difficult to get a house on it. Leskinen noted it is no longer a stand-alone parcel but that it is a separate tax parcel because Hennepin County will not merge the PID of two noncontiguous properties. Schoenzeit stated the fact that they are non-contiguous is another anomaly of why they should not be combined. Schoenzeit noted the only way the original property owner could have a dock was if they entered into the agreement since a person cannot have a dock without a structure. Schoenzeit stated currently the City would allow a structure on that lot and that in his opinion the City should severe the connection between the two lots. Schoenzeit noted the property owners are really not creating a new lot but are simply restoring what is there, which is an important distinction, and that there are a number of lots throughout the City that are nonconforming, which may not be the best reason for denial. Schoenzeit stated the one thing that concerns him is whether the applicants would be able to obtain all the necessary easements to access the property. Schoenzeit stated access cannot come within a foot of the lift station and that there should really be ten feet of clearance. If access could be resolved through the appropriate agreements, Schoenzeit stated in his view the City should allow the property owners to reseparate the two parcels since the state has already said that a person can build on a substandard lot. Lemke asked if the lift station is a problem that was created by the City and whether it was put in the wrong spot. Gaffron stated in his view the City did not put it in the wrong spot and that it was likely a choice made by the engineers who designed it in 1970. The City Council apparently approved the lift station knowing that there was not need for access in that 20-foot right-of-way. Schoenzeit stated obviously the lift station should be considered a neighbor that this property owner has to deal with. Landgraver noted that issue is not before the Planning Commission tonight and that the Planning Commission has to deal with the Special Lot Combination Agreement. Schoenzeit stated if this was a clean sheet, the City should not be creating substandard lots but that this is reseparating something that at one time existed. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not picking the boundaries and that the lot has a sewer connection and a separate tax ID number. Leskinen commented the same logic could be used for two adjoining lots that were combined. If the property owner at some point down the road wanted to reseparate them in order to build a new house, that would be creating a subdivision. Schoenzeit stated the other piece in that is the fact that 50-foot lots are still in character with this neighborhood. Leskinen commented in her view that would set a dangerous precedent. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 10/21/2013 Approval of PC Minutes 09/16/2013 [Page 16 of 34]