Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gilbert commented they created a new lakeshore lot. Gilbert noted the findings state the granting of the <br /> application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment and is a substantial property right of the <br /> applicant. The Planning Commission voted against that and the City Council reversed that. In addition, <br /> the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort or morals in <br /> any respect and would be contrary to the intent of this Chapter. Gilbert stated they meet that requirement <br /> as well. The third finding was that the size, shape and orientation of the properties raise practical <br /> difficulties. Gilbert stated he believes his situation is no different when considering the rationale in the <br /> Bjerkland application. <br /> Thiesse pointed out Bjerkland had two lots to begin with and ended up with two conforming lots, and in <br /> this case there is only one lot and he will end up with one conforming and one nonconforming lot. <br /> Lemke asked if there is city sewer available. <br /> Curtis stated there is. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the Metropolitan Council has approved a second connection. <br /> Curtis stated they have not. <br /> Leskinen stated historically the City does not create nonconforming lots and that she does not see a <br /> compelling reason to change that in this case. Leskinen stated the applicant has reasonable use of the one <br /> lot and that it does not meet that section of the practical difficulties since reasonable use can be made <br /> without subdividing. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen. <br /> Lemke stated it does not parallel the other decision since there were two lots initially and both ended up <br /> being conforming. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the standard of practical difficulty has not been met and that there is one lot <br /> so there should be one house. <br /> Olson stated his biggest concern is that it will set a precedent. <br /> Schwingler stated in his mind it is pretty straight forward and that it would be creating a nonconforming <br /> lot. <br /> Landgraver stated it should be acknowledged that the applicant is taking a less than desirable property and <br /> improving it,which should be encouraged, but that this Planning Commission has never approved a <br /> nonconforming lot. <br /> Thiesse stated he would agree with that. <br /> Page 7 of 25 <br />