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 10 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron stated the fact that it specifically states that any future subdivision must be in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application supports the underlying premise that these requirements were specifically put in place to ensure that such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots conformed to the dimensional requirements of the code at the time a subdivision is requested. The applicants’ attorney further states that “Staff does not dispute that all across the City of Orono building has occurred or will occur on identical lots with 50-foot shorelines.” Gaffron noted this statement should be taken into context with the answer to Question No. 2. The majority of all such construction since the year 2000 has been teardown/rebuild situations, where a house already existed on the property. Since 2000, and perhaps earlier, the City has not approved nor issued a permit for a new home on a 50-foot wide, historically vacant lakeshore lot. However, as a result of the statute changes, there is one pending application in the applicants’ immediate neighborhood. Finally, the applicants’ attorney suggests that the Alness situation is unfairly being treated differently than others in the neighborhood. Staff would contend that the other situations in the neighborhood are different for the following reasons: 1. No other properties in the neighborhood are subject to a Special Lot Combination that ties together two properties that are not abutting or directly across the road from each other. If the road was vacated, properties owned in common directly opposite each other would become completely abutting properties, as each would be gaining their half of the road. That is not the case with the Alness properties. 2. The property to the north, Lot 6, is owned by the owners of the home directly across the 20 foot platted road at 1135 North Arm Drive, they have complete visual control over the dock. If the road was vacated their lot with the residence would abut their lake parcel. If they requested combination, the County would very likely approve it. 3. The property to the south, where a dock exists on vacant Lot 9, was until very recently owned in common with Lots 10 and 11 for the past three decades. The owner of 1179 no doubt placed his dock on Lot 9 due to the steep topography of Lots 10 and 11. In the future that property owner will have to relocate his dock to Lots 10 and 11 since Lot 9 has been sold in combination with the small lot directly across the road east of it and will be built upon in the near future. Lot 9 was one of a group of contiguous commonly-owned lakeshore lots that the City was required to allow as buildable since it meets the standards for separate build ability established by the statutes. Gaffron stated Staff has approached review of this application primarily on the basis of the Special Lot Combination language. The history of past denials for this property, details of the applicants’ site plan for a home that meets setback and hardcover requirements, access issues related to the location of the road and the lift station, are all secondary to the primary issue. Gaffron noted an added potential complication that has recently come to light is that the portion of the property proposed to be built upon may meet the criteria to be defined as a bluff and additional topographic data may be required in order to make a final determination. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 10 of 23]