Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 21,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ms. Oakden replied she is not sure where those came from, on the 2015 As-Built Survey, no stairs were <br /> shown so she would assume that the stairs were done after the survey was completed. <br /> Libby noted he is having problem with establishing a Practical Difficulty, he thinks that any remedy could <br /> come about by another design. <br /> Erickson said he has a similar problem,the availability of alternatives which are either in compliance or <br /> more in compliance with the City's ordinance leads one to believe there is not a Practical Difficulty and <br /> the plan is more to the convenience of the homeowner. Given a choice between a non-compliant plan and <br /> a compliant plan, he said it's an easy choice to make. <br /> Kirchner agrees with what has been stated, he doesn't believe the Practical Difficulties have been <br /> established as required, he agrees with Erickson that there are other viable options that could create a <br /> conforming plan that wouldn't require variance. For those reasons, he would not support this. <br /> Gettman stated, not to oppose everyone each and every time, but the setbacks are obviously very sacred <br /> and that is what they're always trying to ask about. What he is struggling with is the fact that when the <br /> homeowner purchased the home, it looks like they, or at least the stairs, were already encroaching on the <br /> setback. The initial proposal is further encroaching,which is where everyone is uncomfortable, as <br /> opposed to the alternate proposal. The bigger issue for Gettman is back to the Practical Difficulties, it <br /> looks like the homeowner has made a concerted effort to apply that same setback with the stairs and clean <br /> it up on the West side of the house, and he would be inclined to be in favor of the alternate proposal for <br /> that reason. It also comes down to the fact that they have a setback that is 150% of the normal,that in <br /> Gettman's mind ends up being a Practical Difficulty because it's not normal to have that additional fifteen <br /> foot setback, given the size and the situation of the lot itself. He noted he is inclined to support the <br /> alternate proposal but not the proposal that was submitted. <br /> Chair Ressler noted the biggest difficulty the Commission has is they have rules that must be followed <br /> and then there are amendments or variances to those rules. In this case a variance is applied when there is <br /> only an acceptable Practical Difficulty applied and there must be fundamental circumstances that warrant <br /> that variance. Usability is an arbitrary word that can be taken in many different lights, but more-so must <br /> be proven more than denied. In this case, Ressler thinks it is not ideal to have a seven-foot depth porch, <br /> but where the Commission often approves situations which further worsen or encroach upon a setback, <br /> it's usually because there is no other alternative. He noted sometimes they see a suitability need,which <br /> has partially been discussed with the layout of the home, but sightline being unsavory on the side, <br /> although not ideal, is a way to make it work. <br /> Gettman moved,Kirchner seconded,to deny application LA20-000054,3825 North Shore Drive, <br /> Variance,as submitted. <br /> Chair Ressler clarified that Gettman isn't moving to approve the amended because that is not on the table. <br /> Gettman replied that is correct,his motion is to deny as submitted. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> Barnhart said the Commission's recommendation will go before the City Council on October 12, 2020. <br /> Page 6 of 27 <br />