Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 15,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Pfeffer requested the Planning Commission approve the application. Pfeffer indicated she is tired of <br /> throwing money down a hole every year for taxes and that she would like to sell it. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated she did review the report in detail and that included in there was a great deal of historical <br /> information on the property. Leskinen stated the main concern is that the property is so small and that she <br /> does not see anything that would change that. Constructing a house on the property would change the <br /> area since the house would be so much smaller than anything else in the neighborhood as well as in the <br /> zoning district. Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of the application based on what she has seen and <br /> heard. <br /> Schoenzeit stated,based on the precedence, it is an unbuildable lot. The fact that it does have a sewer <br /> stub makes it interesting but it may be beyond the scope of the Planning Commission to exploit that fact. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he cannot,based on what he has seen,use that as justification to approve all the <br /> variances being requested. Schoenzeit stated even with the sewer stub,the house is in the wrong spot and <br /> not in character with the neighborhood. <br /> McGrann stated he has looked at the aerial views and the setbacks of the other properties, and when you <br /> look at how much the entire structure will be ahead of the average lakeshore setback, it would set a much <br /> different precedent than the City has historically approved. <br /> Landgraver stated he found it helpful to look at the history of the property. Landgraver commented that <br /> what struck him is if a house had remained on the property,they would not be having this meeting since <br /> someone could construct an in-kind replacement. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated wherever people have had an existing house,the City has <br /> granted variances allowing them to rebuild. By granting variances in certain situations,the City was able <br /> to gain some additional setback from the lake or some other improvement on the property. <br /> Landgraver noted from the records it appears the various planning staffs and councils have been fairly <br /> consistent about denying variances when there is no existing structure. Landgraver stated he brought that <br /> fact up because it would not be inconsistent now to say it is an unbuildable lot. <br /> Lemke stated the fact that it has not been approved in the past,the fact that there has not been a house on <br /> it for the past 65 years, and the lot area is well below the minimum required,makes it a very unbuildable <br /> lot. Lemke indicated he also walked the property yesterday and it was very wet. Lemke stated it does not <br /> make a lot of sense to approve the variances. <br /> Thiesse stated he cannot argue with anything that has been said so far by the other Commissioners. <br /> Thiesse indicated he cannot understand why the City would allow someone else to build in front of the <br /> average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted this lot appears to be the receiver of everyone else's water and <br /> that it is difficult to tell them they cannot build on the lot because of that. Thiesse questioned whether the <br /> City should just continue to tell the property owners that they cannot build on the property and still <br /> require taxes to be paid on it or whether there is another option that has not yet been explored. <br /> Page 18 of 23 <br />