Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 18,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated the house does not fit into this area. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the 2,000 square footprint allowance does not have a must fit in the neighborhood <br /> clause to be invoked. <br /> Thiesse noted Item No. 3 states the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. <br /> Schoenzeit stated this house alters the neighborhood but the question is whether the 1,500/2,000 square <br /> foot structural coverage trumps other variances. <br /> Curtis stated the 2,Q00 square feet is the City's allowance for structural coverage and oftentimes a lot <br /> under 10,000 square feet will need more than a lot area and width variance. The City used to make an <br /> assumption that a reasonable house was 1,500 square feet and that has been increased to 2,000 square <br /> feet, which is conceivably within setbacks and hardcover. If the lot is further challenging,the Planning <br /> Commission should take a look at those other factors. <br /> Schoenzeit commented often a little house is still within the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit <br /> stated if a 10,000 square foot lot also needs to be in character, this house would not meet that. Schoenzeit <br /> stated the question is whether a lot of record this small guarantees them the right to build. <br /> Thiesse stated they are allowed up to 2,000 square feet for a lot less than 10,000 square feet. <br /> Schoenzeit noted they do not meet the 75-foot setback, which is a reason for denial. <br /> Sharratt asked if there is value in tabling the application and moving the house, which would eliminate the <br /> 75-foot setback variance. <br /> Thiesse stated in his mind, if the Planning Commission recommends denial and they bring it before the <br /> City Council,they would make that decision. Thiesse stated it appears the 75-foot setback variance will <br /> be denied, and since they cannot meet the average lakeshore setback, in his view that could be considered <br /> a hardship. <br /> Schoenzeit asked which is higher, out of character or cannot happen. <br /> Thiesse stated the house that fits on this lot does not fit the neighborhood. Thiesse noted he voted not to <br /> have a house on this property previously and that he does not feel enough has changed since the last time. <br /> Leskinen concurred with Commissioner Thiesse. <br /> Thiesse stated in regards to the criteria,the applicants are proposing to use the property in a reasonable <br /> manner but the granting of the variances will alter the locality. Thiesse stated the conditions do not apply <br /> to other land in the immediate neighborhood and that it should be a denial because it will alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen noted the Planning Commission needs to list the specific reasons for denial of the three <br /> variances Staff recommends approval. Leskinen asked whether the fact the house would alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood is sufficient. <br /> Page 12 of 21 <br />