Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Staff does not believe changing the setbacks is a problem and that an argument could be made in favor of <br /> granting the variances. The front lot/back lot relationship established during the 1995 re-plat has <br /> technical flaws. The existing shared driveway configuration has not caused any of the potential conflicts <br /> envisioned by the ordinance. Due to the shape of the lots,the actual separation between the homes at <br /> 2445 and 2455 exceeds 200 feet,which is far greater than the 125-foot separation that would be required <br /> in a standard front/back lot configuration in the 2-acre zone. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. If the Planning Commission determines that the <br /> practical difficulties test is met and the requested variance is justified,then a recommendation for <br /> approval would be in order. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there is any reason why the why the paperwork could not simply be modified if the <br /> current property owner owns both properties. <br /> Gaffron stated the City could possibly do that but that he would need to check with the City Attorney. <br /> Leskinen stated it would basically be retroactively creating compliance. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they could be made "through" lots and would stand alone without any variance. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the future owner would be aware of what they are getting and there would be no impact. <br /> John Adams stated he does not have a problem with changing the paperwork. Adams stated the purpose <br /> of the re-platting was to get rid of the cul-de-sac, and in the findings there were 13 different findings that <br /> were positive reasons listed for the re-platting. The property owners at that time and the neighbors <br /> wanted to eliminate the cul-de-ac. Adams stated this lot getting reclassified as a back lot was an <br /> unforeseen consequence. <br /> Adams noted Item No. 3 of Reso(ution No. 3653 states that a variance is hereby granted to the back lot <br /> width and lot area standards for Lot 1. Further, a variance is granted to the back lot setback standards for <br /> all existing structures and improvements. Adams stated if it had read all existing"and future structures" <br /> and existing"and future improvements", it would have been clear that that was meant to be the setback to <br /> the LR-lA standard similar to the surrounding properties. <br /> Adams stated he is not sure whether the City Attorney would be in favor of changing the language in the <br /> resolution. <br /> Gaffron stated at the time of the replatting he believes the intent was that existing structures and existing <br /> improvements would not be subject to the back lot standards, i.e. it would not make them non- <br /> conforming. Gaffron stated to his knowledge it did not mean that future improvements could be done <br /> without adherence to the back lot standards; but it may not be problematic to grant the request as long as <br /> everyone agrees that the standard 30-foot side setbacks are reasonable for this site. <br /> Adams stated back then it was a relatively new house and they were probably not thinking about future <br /> improvements to the property. Adams stated had the language read both existing and future, then it <br /> would have been covered. Adams stated if it makes more sense to modify the resolution,they would be <br /> fine with it. <br /> Page 4 of 30 <br />