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 9 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) The fifth question raised by the applicants’ attorney is whether there have been any variances granted to allow docks on lakeshore lots without a principal residence structure. Gaffron stated the City has not historically granted variances to allow docks on vacant lake lots. The only variance situation Staff is aware of is the handful of 20’ x 20’ dock lots near the Narrows Bridge on County Road 19. In this situation, small 20’ x 20’ lots were created in the mid-1950s to provide lake access for developed properties in the neighborhood. Eventually those tiny lots were sold separately from the residential properties they were intended to serve. In 1985, the City granted conditional use permits/variances as a method to recognize and control the existing nonconforming dock use. Gaffron stated as it concerns the question regarding lakeshore properties in the City that have docks where there is no principal structure and why they were not required to have a Special Lot Combination Agreement, only a few situations have been created in the past 40 to 50 years. Gaffron stated there are many situations along the shore where a lakeshore residence is separated from the lakeshore by a roadway that runs parallel to the shore and they typically fall under two different scenarios: One, the off-lake parcel extends through the road to the shore and the road exists as an easement and the property on both sides of the road exists as a single tax parcel. Two, when these properties were subdivided via a platting process, the off-lake parcel and the lakeshore parcel were platted as separate parcels, each with its own tax number. The lake parcel was typically platted as an Outlot as part of the subdivision approval, was required to be owned with its opposite off-lake parcel. In either case, Gaffron stated the City typically has not required a Special Lot Combination agreement where those characteristics exist. As it regards the road access and the lift station, the applicants’ attorney questions whether the lift station can be located in the middle of the road right-of-way. The lift station is 30 feet deep, and the open cut needed at the time to install it would have been extremely deep and wide. Placing it at the center of an undeveloped alley that was not serving any existing homes was likely the prudent location with the least impact on neighboring properties under the circumstances. Gaffron noted it would be very expensive to relocate that lift station. The final question raised by the applicants’ attorney is whether 50-foot lots are characteristic of this neighborhood. Gaffron stated if the neighborhood is considered to be the five lots on either side of the applicants’ property, the range of sizes of the lots go from 51 feet to 200 feet. There are developed lots to the immediate north that range between 120 feet, 150 feet, 200 feet, and 140 feet. To the south the lots range from 51 feet, 102 feet, 102 feet, and 55 feet, with the average being 115 feet. If the entire eastern shore of Forest Lake is considered, the range of those 32 lots with homes is 40 feet to 200 feet, with an average width of 87 feet. If the entire shore of Forest Lake is considered, the average width would be substantially greater. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicants’ attorney raised two issues. The first issue relates to the language contained in the Special Lot Combination agreement requiring a subdivision application in order to separate the two parcels. Gaffron indicated that language has been incorporated in the boilerplate of the Special Lot Combination agreement documents since at least 1983 and appears in all agreements Staff has been able to locate. The language was and is intended to provide a level of permanence to the agreement. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 9 of 23]