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 15 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Printup stated if the City is looking to draw a straight line and they are just a little bit off in the beginning, that line becomes further off decades down the line. Printup stated the City is perpetuating something that is special or weird with these two lots that are not physically together. Printup indicated that is the issue he is wrestling with and why he can rest very easy with separating the two. McMillan stated regardless of the state statute, the lake lot is not able to be developed due to the Special Lot Combination. If the two lots were separated, the lots still may be unbuildable due to access because in her view access is going to be very difficult to achieve. McMillan stated given what she has read to date, it may be difficult to gain an easement from one of the neighbors. McMillan stated the state statute has been very difficult for Orono since it has gone against the City’s philosophy and has allowed a number of lots to be developed that the City otherwise would not have allowed to be developed. Building houses on substandard lots creates difficulty with runoff, density, and traffic issues even if they meet the hardcover and side setback requirements. McMillan commented this lot unfortunately is difficult to access, and that with those two issues taken together, she finds it hard to believe that separating the lots will work. McMillan stated in her view the intent in 2001 was to provide dock access and that that is clear from the staff reports and minutes. McMillan stated she has a hard time seeing the value of the City attempting to go down a path of separating the two lots given the access issue and that in her view it is a very difficult site to develop. Printup stated joining it together a number of years ago created this problem by allowing something that was illegal to begin with. McMillan pointed out it was created for the benefit of the property owner at the time. Printup stated the intent was to make a benefit for the property owner but that it calls for a process that would probably never be allowed. McMillan stated at the time the benefit was to allow the property owner access to the lake. The City Council was not aware that in 2010 a state statute would be passed that would make this discussion possible. Anderson noted the City’s codes and requirements have not changed to make the two lots buildable. Printup stated as it relates to Question No. 1, if the Special Lot Combination Agreement was not in place, the Council would not be having this discussion. Printup stated in his view the language is weird. Levang stated as was pointed out in Staff’s report, the words Special Lot combination is used in the City for unique situations and was not created specifically for this situation. Printup commented it was created for lots that are not similar to this situation. Printup indicated he is okay with separating the two lots but that he is not sure whether it requires this agreement to be abandoned or another approach. Printup suggested that perhaps the Council look at the access issues first. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 15 of 23]