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 16 of 23 (8. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE – SUBDIVISION, Continued) Mattick stated if there is a willingness on the part of the Council to examine separating the two, the logical next step would be to address the access issues. However, if there is not a willingness to separate the two lots, there is no reason to examine the access. Levang indicated there is a process outlined in the Special Lot Combination agreement for how these two lots could be separated and that she is not willing to separate the two lots since the intent of the Special Lot Combination Agreement was to combine the two lots. Printup stated if the two lots are not split apart, the City would have houses up and down the shoreline except for this lot because of a weird agreement that was entered into 12 years ago. Levang noted one of the neighbors sold a little piece to create a buildable lot. Levang stated there was every opportunity for whoever owned that lot to buy 1137 or 1153 at some time, and that would have resolved the issue as well. Printup pointed out the City is dealing with properties that do not touch. Levang stated the properties are noncontiguous, but even if those lines are drawn, the lots have been combined under the Special Lot Combination Agreement. Levang stated the lines do not mean anything. McMillan asked whether the Gotten property had a special lot across County Road 15. Gaffron stated the Gotten property was approximately three acres north of County Road 15 and it also included a remnant parcel at the lakeshore south of County Road 15 that was combined with the off-lake land by the County prior to subdivision. When the property was subdivided, two buildable lots were platted off-lake along with an Outlot encompassing the lakeshore remnant. Once that platting was completed, the westerly buildable lot was then combined with the remnant outlot via a Special Lot Combination because they were separated by County Road 15. The County in that plat situation was not expected to combine newly platted lots across a highway right-of-way. Gaffron stated the Gotten parcel always had lake access because it was all one parcel existing on both sides of the County road. Once the split was done, the westerly of the two lots were under a special lot combination with the lakeshore parcel so that lot would have lake access. Five or ten years later the adjacent lakeshore property owner chose to purchase the lakeshore outlot and undo the special lot combination. Gaffron stated the property started out as being one parcel with the road and railroad having easements through it. Gaffron stated the easterly 33 feet of the lot was always part of the triangle to the north. Gaffron indicated that also was an unusual situation but it resolved itself as a result of the purchase by the adjacent property owner. Anderson stated she views this as something similar to a conditional use permit which accompanies the property. Anderson noted this agreement was made relating to these two parcels and went with the property. Anderson stated no matter whom the next owner was, they were aware of the combination and it was not something that was a hardship to them at the time they purchased the property. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 10/14/2013 [Page 16 of 23]