Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 18 of 30  <br />  <br />stated to his understanding there are 12 Special Lot Combination Agreements in the City and to his <br />knowledge those property owners have not been served as part of this lawsuit. Thieroff stated they would <br />need to be made a party to the lawsuit if someone is attempting to change their property rights. <br /> <br />Thieroff stated the claim in the case is not that Special Lot Combination agreements are illegal but rather <br />that the circumstances for the Special Lot Combination Agreement in this case were somehow unfair. <br />Thieroff stated those are very, very different facts for each piece of property, and if the Court should <br />declare that this agreement is invalid, the other agreements would still be standing. Thieroff stated if <br />there was a house on No. 6, that would be the appropriate place to measure. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she does not want to drift too far into issues that are not before the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated in his view the setback is a critical issue and needs to be resolved. <br /> <br />Schwingler stated he found it helpful to learn that there would need to be separate lawsuits for each of the <br />Special Lot Combination Agreements and that any ruling would apply just to this one particular property. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted there are two issues before the Planning Commission, the lakeshore setback and the two <br />and a half stories. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit commented this is a difficult lot to build on and that he does not understand why the <br />applicants would choose this lot to build on. <br /> <br />Lemke stated his concern with the average lakeshore setback is that it makes the lot unbuildable and that <br />there are also issues with the slope. Lemke stated in general it seems like way too much house for that <br />size of a lot and would be out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she also has a concern with the amount of massing next to the lakeshore. Leskinen stated <br />she also is still stuck on the fact that this lot has had a number of previous applications for a building on it <br />and it has always been deemed unbuildable. Leskinen stated even if you look at the lot without the <br />Special Lot Combination Agreement, she would still come to the conclusion that the lot is unbuildable <br />given its size, especially with the average setback. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted they are doing exactly that two lots over. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated there is not an average lakeshore setback in that case. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated the lot itself can support a house but the average lakeshore setback stops that. Thiesse <br />stated the Special Lot Combination Agreement was put in place to benefit the owner of the property by <br />giving them access to the lake. That has now become a detriment to the property owners because <br />someone at the state level has determined that you can build on 50-foot lots. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the average lakeshore setback is what makes the lot unbuildable independent of the lot <br />size. Schoenzeit stated in his view the building being proposed is too large and that the property owners <br />bought the property knowing that there was this Special Lot Combination Agreement in effect. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 18 of 30]