Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 15, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 18 of 23  <br />  <br /> <br />Pfeffer requested the Planning Commission approve the application. Pfeffer indicated she is tired of <br />throwing money down a hole every year for taxes and that she would like to sell it. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she did review the report in detail and that included in there was a great deal of historical <br />information on the property. Leskinen stated the main concern is that the property is so small and that she <br />does not see anything that would change that. Constructing a house on the property would change the <br />area since the house would be so much smaller than anything else in the neighborhood as well as in the <br />zoning district. Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of the application based on what she has seen and <br />heard. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated, based on the precedence, it is an unbuildable lot. The fact that it does have a sewer <br />stub makes it interesting but it may be beyond the scope of the Planning Commission to exploit that fact. <br />Schoenzeit stated he cannot, based on what he has seen, use that as justification to approve all the <br />variances being requested. Schoenzeit stated even with the sewer stub, the house is in the wrong spot and <br />not in character with the neighborhood. <br /> <br />McGrann stated he has looked at the aerial views and the setbacks of the other properties, and when you <br />look at how much the entire structure will be ahead of the average lakeshore setback, it would set a much <br />different precedent than the City has historically approved. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he found it helpful to look at the history of the property. Landgraver commented that <br />what struck him is if a house had remained on the property, they would not be having this meeting since <br />someone could construct an in-kind replacement. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated wherever people have had an existing house, the City has <br />granted variances allowing them to rebuild. By granting variances in certain situations, the City was able <br />to gain some additional setback from the lake or some other improvement on the property. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted from the records it appears the various planning staffs and councils have been fairly <br />consistent about denying variances when there is no existing structure. Landgraver stated he brought that <br />fact up because it would not be inconsistent now to say it is an unbuildable lot. <br /> <br />Lemke stated the fact that it has not been approved in the past, the fact that there has not been a house on <br />it for the past 65 years, and the lot area is well below the minimum required, makes it a very unbuildable <br />lot. Lemke indicated he also walked the property yesterday and it was very wet. Lemke stated it does not <br />make a lot of sense to approve the variances. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he cannot argue with anything that has been said so far by the other Commissioners. <br />Thiesse indicated he cannot understand why the City would allow someone else to build in front of the <br />average lakeshore setback. Thiesse noted this lot appears to be the receiver of everyone else’s water and <br />that it is difficult to tell them they cannot build on the lot because of that. Thiesse questioned whether the <br />City should just continue to tell the property owners that they cannot build on the property and still <br />require taxes to be paid on it or whether there is another option that has not yet been explored. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/19/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 07/15/2013