Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated that could be accomplished with six feet, which is what the Planning Commission had <br /> directed at the last meeting. The applicant last time proposed 12 feet and is now proposing nine feet. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view a standard sedan would fit in the 16.2 feet. <br /> Landgraver asked if the City has a minimum garage depth. <br /> Curtis indicated it does not. <br /> Thiesse stated 20 feet would be tight and 24 feet is reasonable. <br /> Schwingler commented he also owns a Suburban that does not fit into his garage. Schwinger stated he is <br /> struggling with moving the garage closer to the lake with the setback variance and that it will alter the <br /> essential character of the neighborhood. Schwingler stated he understands it is a difficult property to <br /> work with and that there are trees nearby. Schwingler stated the property owner could still park cars in <br /> the driveway even with a full-size garage and that parking cars outside is not a hardship. <br /> Leskinen noted the original proposal has only been reduced by three feet and does not alleviate the <br /> potential turnaround problems,which was also raised at the last meeting. <br /> McGrann asked if six feet would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. <br /> Leskinen noted six feet is what the Commission discussed last time. <br /> Thiesse noted the applicant needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty and that an 18-foot garage is a <br /> practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated a 24-foot garage is not a practical difficulty. <br /> Leskinen noted the garage is currently 18 feet. <br /> Wang stated even if they do not do the addition,they are already encroaching towards the lake. Wang <br /> stated if they are forced to reduce the garage down by another three feet,they might as well tear down the <br /> garage and rebuild a new one,but that he does not have the money to do that. <br /> Wang stated the current proposal will not make the situation any worse. Wang stated due to the tight <br /> constraints with the land,their proposal will not make it any worse. <br /> Leskinen asked why the applicant is proposing nine feet versus six feet after the discussion at the last <br /> Planning Commission meeting. <br /> Wang stated their contractor indicated six feet would not be sufficient, which is the reason why they <br /> stayed with the nine feet. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is a time constraint on this application. <br /> Curtis indicated the 60-day review period will expire on December 3 and that she is planning to take the <br /> additional 60 days the City is allowed. The applicants have indicated they would like to take some time <br /> before they go before the City Council. <br /> Page 3 of 35 <br />