Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the boat club does not own the main site and it operates out of the main site with a <br /> lease. If the boat club purchases the two residential properties, they would not be able to use the <br /> residential properties for business until it is zoned commercial. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they would also have a responsibility to the City to keep the residential properties in <br /> shape and used appropriately. <br /> Bennett stated in her view the Planning Commission should not allow an increase in the use until the <br /> ownership is figured out. <br /> Bennett moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application#13-3606,Luke <br /> Kujawwa of Your Boat Club on behalf of M.G. Kaminski, 1444 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use <br /> Permit Amendment. <br /> Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to table the application until further information can be obtained <br /> regarding the residential property. Leskinen encouraged the applicant to address some of these issues <br /> following the Planning Commission meeting and that she cannot, in good conscious, approve an increase <br /> in use when there are these large neighborhood issues on the table. <br /> Thiesse asked what she would be looking to gain by tabling the application and what would be the <br /> weighing factor in possibly approving the application. <br /> Leskinen stated she would like clarity on the ownership,what that means in terms of who is legally <br /> responsible, and if there is any legal issue with the parking contract. Leskinen asked if it matters whose <br /> name is on the lease as it relates to the parking agreement. <br /> Gaffron indicated the parking agreement is attached to the property. <br /> Thiesse asked if the difference between denying the application and tabling it is the cost to re-file an <br /> application. <br /> Gaffron stated a tabled application could be brought back at some point if the issues are resolved, as <br /> opposed to a denial, which would take it before the City Council where they can either table it, send it <br /> back to the Planning Commission, or deny it. <br /> Lemke noted the applicant could also withdraw the application. <br /> Schoenzeit stated even if the ownership issue is resolved, he would be inclined to deny the expansion <br /> until the applicant has a track record of properly using the residential property and the neighbors gave the <br /> application even lukewarm support. <br /> Thiesse stated he cannot support it given both neighbors' complaints. Thiesse stated he also cannot, in <br /> good conscious,table it until the ownership of the residential property is resolved given the other issues <br /> that have been raised. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Landgraver opposed. <br /> Page 20 of 25 <br />