Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, August 15, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />He asked about drainage across the street and wonders if pushing it back will affect those drainage issues. <br />Mr. Seidel supports this plan and looks forward to having them as neighbors. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> <br />McCutcheon appreciates the Applicant taking the feedback from 3 lots to 2 lots. He noted they put some <br />thought into the plans in looking at drainage points, the neighbor’s pool and respecting their privacy, and <br />the uniformity of the look of the proposed house. <br /> <br />Kraemer agrees it is a win-win and it is always great to see neighbor support. It improves things for <br />everyone and gives more consistency to the neighborhood and it looks good. <br /> <br />Erickson noted he may be biased as he started on a property with three homes on it and he tore down two <br />so now there is one. He spoke about Staff’s concerns, especially number 12 of the practical difficulties. <br />He said when one has the option to build in a different location that conforms with Code, it then <br />concludes the request is a convenience to the property owner rather than a practical difficulty. Erickson <br />stated State law dictates standards for practical difficulty and if they cannot make that standard the law <br />forbids the City and Council from approving it. <br /> <br />Kirchner echoes Mr. Erickson and finds it difficult to identify practical difficulties with this application. <br />He does not believe practical difficulties are established and would not support the application. <br /> <br />Peterson suggested giving it back to the architect and making it conform to the guidelines. <br /> <br />Mr. Gustafson stated a lot of work has gone into the designing the location and form of the homes, <br />especially to the south as they are concerned about the massing of the lake and south side of the home and <br />do not want it to block their view or sunlight. <br /> <br />Curtis added that pushing the house 210 feet back from the lake results in a condition that is out of the <br />character on Casco as they do no typically have this great distance and the homes are closer to the lake. <br />Therefore it would be out of character in this particular area but that is the conforming setback. <br /> <br />Mr. Gorman noted they are trying to be transparent and stated this is the difference between practical <br />difficulty and a practical result. The practical result that works best for the community and neighbors is <br />consistent with what they have laid out. The question is whether they get there with one step or two steps. <br /> <br />Mr. Gustafson thinks the flag lot itself is the practical difficulty and it is further from the lake than most <br />every other home to the north of this property. In addition, in talking to City Staff there has been some <br />head scratching as they have not seen many three lot combos with both homes being torn down and there <br />isn’t a lakeside setback established by existing homes. He suspects the uniqueness of the lot is part of the <br />practical difficulty here. <br /> <br />McCutcheon does not think this is egregious, the neighbors are in line, it seems like a win-win with less <br />massing. Regarding practical difficulty if they take into consideration the shape of the lake and the flag lot <br />and whether that helps the decision at all. <br />