Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated her other concern is with the practical difficulty analysis. Leskinen noted economic <br /> conditions alone cannot determine whether a variance is granted and that in her view it appears to be more <br /> of an economic piece than the other criteria the Planning Commission generally looks at. <br /> Leskinen stated if they can get past the practical difficulty and decide that the lot line rearrangement can <br /> create two conforming lots,that is the option they should choose. Leskinen stated she would be more <br /> inclined to grant a setback variance than a lot line variance because she is not inclined to create a <br /> nonconforming lot. <br /> Thiesse noted the lots conform with the area requirement but do not conform to width except at the 75- <br /> foot line. Thiesse stated based on the width,they cannot build a house where the line is drawn. Thiesse <br /> asked if this could be approved if a condition is added that they have to conform with the lot width at the <br /> location the house is constructed. <br /> Gaffron stated the existing lot has a defined width going from one point to another point,which is perhaps <br /> 100 feet. Gaffron indicated the applicants are trying to create two conforming lots from a substandard, <br /> nonconforming lakeshore lot. Gaffron stated the lot is substandard because of the channel that was <br /> dredged decades ago. Gaffron stated the question is why the southerly lot was not given lakeshore access <br /> at that time. Gaffron indicated it is unlikely Staff would be able to find the answer to that. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is anything in the Code that prohibits people from having gerrymandered lot lines. <br /> Gaffron stated to his knowledge there is nothing in the code prohibiting it as long as the lots are <br /> conforming but that the City creates nonconforming width lots every time there is a cul-de-sac. In this <br /> situation the applicants are taking two lots,one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore,and turning the non- <br /> lakeshore lot into a lakeshore lot. <br /> Lemke commented it makes sense to create two lakeshore lots by looking at where the building pad will <br /> be. Lemke stated in his view it would not be a horrible situation but that he would like to see it work if at <br /> all possible. <br /> Thiesse stated it appears it cannot be granted based on the practical difficulty statement. Thiesse asked <br /> whether the Planning Commission can request a revised practical difficulties statement. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty is the shape of the land and not the economics. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission cannot write that for the applicant and that it would have to be <br /> revised. <br /> Leskinen stated economics cannot be the only factor in determining a practical difficulty. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission could approve the application with the caveat that the <br /> applicants submit a better practical difficulty statement. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty statement should be more in line with the difficulty of the land. <br /> Barnhart stated the practical difficulty statement is intended to give the Planning Commission reasons to <br /> recommend support or denial. Barnhart stated if the applicants did not meet the practical difficulty <br /> Page 21 of 43 <br />