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 12 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Gaffron stated the Council, if asked to do that, would have some hard decisions to make on why they would allow separated parcels to be combined. Gaffron stated this is an unusual situation and the Council allowed a Special Lot Combination in order to allow a dock on the lakeshore lot. McMillan commented the property is almost like the applicant’s own personal outlot. McMillan noted the City has tended to be very restrictive of outlots, and that while there are a few that have happened in Orono for various reasons, it is generally not the policy of Orono to allow personal outlots. The Special Lot Combination agreement gave the property owner the advantage of gaining lake access but it was an unbuildable parcel. McMillan stated allowing a dock on the parcel enabled the property owner to get some value from the property. Printup asked if allowing the subdivision in this situation would be precedent setting. Mattick stated in his opinion it does not set a precedent and that by saying it would set a precedent suggests that the situation will come up again. Mattick noted the two lots are not abutting or directly across from each other and that he is not aware of any other situations like this. Morgan Kavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law representing the applicants, stated there has been a lot of time put in by Staff reviewing this matter and that he has submitted three letters previously in response to Staff’s arguments. Kavanaugh indicated he does not want to spend a lot of time revisiting all that. Kavanaugh stated the primary issue is the intent of the agreement and that he respectfully disagrees with the City Attorney that the intent is not crystal clear. In the 2001 application, Paragraph 11 of the resolution says Lot 7 could be continued to be used for private dock purposes and on Page 6 it states to allow for lake access. In addition, the Planning Commission minutes reflect that the applicant at the time stated that the main purpose for purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. If she could not do that, she wanted to be able to keep her dock. The City Council minutes from 2001 specifically states that Staff commented to have a dock would require a variance and the motion was to specifically allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated Page 12 reflects that the agreement and the use of the Special Lot Combination Agreement it is very appropriate to allow a dock. Kavanaugh stated if you look at the facts and circumstances of the 2001 application, it was to allow a dock and there is nothing in the record reflecting that the City wanted to bar development on the lot for all time. Kavanaugh noted that Planner Gaffron acknowledges in his report that the agreement is boilerplate language. To say that it was specifically and purposely drafted for this situation is not entirely true. If you look at the language itself, it states that the terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by Grantor to Grantee for approval of a subdivision in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application. Kavanaugh noted it does not say that it has to meet the minimum lot requirements. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 12 of 23]