10-28-2013 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 14, 2013 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron indicated one of the questions that have been raised is how the statutes that were recently revised within the past three or four years would affect this parcel. The applicants’ attorney has suggested that because the City has allowed other similar sized lots to be built on in recent years, they should be treated equally. The practical difficulty standards have also been cited. Gaffron noted the City is not processing a variance but rather a subdivision to create a new lot. In addition, the applicants’ attorney suggests that the provisions of Item No. 7 were intended solely to allow for a dock on the lake parcel and not to prevent future development. Staff disagrees with that characterization and would offer the following comments: 1. It cannot be construed that the City has recently simply allowed development of small lakeshore lots. The City has, by action of the 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 its status as a separate lot and is therefore not subject to or benefitted by the cited statute provisions. 5. The applicants’ attorney has argued 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 such application to merely extinguish a covenant in itself indicates the intent and spirit of the agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure that the applicant understood that they were combining two lots into one lot. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants’ attorney has raised a number of questions which have been addressed in Staff’s report. The first question asked if the lot would be buildable under the statutes and city code if it was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement. Gaffron stated if the property was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement, it would be buildable under the statute provided it meets the other required standards, but the fact remains that there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement in place. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 7 of 23]