07-12-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 21, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Gettman said from day one on the Commission he has always struggled with the issue citizens have brought up which is the essential character of the locality. This one seems to be almost exactly on point because every single house on the street is set back farther. What is that practical difficulty that they are allowing for this single house to get the exception of moving the envelope forward. He is not hearing it; he is hearing the difficulties of a bad purchase. Curtis wants to be clear that the issue they are debating tonight is that the property is within the LR-1C zoning district (the ½ acre zoning district) which means one is required to have ½ acre to build. She stated they do not have ½ acre. They could build today if they limit the property to 25% and they would move the house closer to the street because they can build without variances as the lot is right now based on the City’s code. Granting a variance allows the Applicant the hardcover that the rest of the properties in the Tier 2 area of setback from the lake are afforded. She clarified they are not debating a setback variance or hardcover variance. They are simply debating: can they develop the lot and is there a practical difficulty. Barnhart stated they see lot area and lot width variances frequently when a property cannot meet all the setbacks. This property met all of those requirements so the only variance really, is the lot area lot width and the only reason they are doing that is so they can be consistent with the hardcover limitations with the neighborhood. Gettman brought up a property by the golf course that used to be a school; that property is just not meant to be built on because where they end up having to put the driveway. His purpose in bringing this up is that the character of the neighborhood is going to be altered because of what they end up doing today. Will it get altered if they do not do anything? Potentially. However, with this they are giving approval for a change to the neighborhood. Barnhart would be very cautious with that kind of comment. Yes, the neighboring property owners can build to the building setback line as this one can. He said to keep in mind whenever a new project comes forward there is an impact to the character of the neighborhood, so he would be very cautious in using that argument to deny a project because anything that happens changes things. He noted the Commission is welcome to make the recommendation of denial but he suggested to be cautious because that can be applied every time and they may back themselves into a corner in analyzing these applications because they are trying to find a reason to not approve it versus being more pronounced. Gettman appreciates that and reiterated with the old schoolhouse, he was the one who recommended approval of that but it was just voicing the concerns to the City Council as the advisory board that the Commission is. He said it is the same thing here. He does not see any reason for denying this; the concern is the fact that it is totally different than all other houses there. Curtis stated to process this variance and for the Planning Commission and City Council to review the variance, the Applicant does not need to provide a footprint or show the plan. They are asking if they can develop the lot according to the code-required standards. Ressler stated perhaps Gettman’s concern is perhaps the City needs to consider a text amendment or something along those lines that may allow a little more clarification and guidance as to character of the neighborhood.