07-10-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The residents ask the Planning Commission to not table this plan but to reject the proposal outright. Further, the residents would ask the Planning Commission and Staff to encourage development of this property on a much smaller scale nearing the low end of the six units per acre, more suitable for this nonconforming lot size, and to continue to review all future development proposals for this area under the terms reflected in the guiding principles and philosophy of the Community Management Plan that is in place. Olson requested the Planning Commission and Staff also take an opportunity to review Exhibit G submitted by Mr. Kirk Sherman, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Olson thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Shawn Macentee, 2490 Old Beach Road, stated when he started considering the application, he looked at the City variances. When looking at variances, the City Council may grant variances in cases where there are practical difficulties and the weight of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter, taking into account the character and development of the neighborhood. In considering applications for variances, the Council shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing traffic conditions, light and air, and the risk to public safety and the effects on the values of property, and to grant variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions with be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Planning Commission heard tonight that this five -story building would be very uncharacteristic of this area. Acting on the considerations alone does not constitute practical difficulties. There have been questions tonight whether it is economically feasible to go smaller, which is not one of the considerations under the statute. The granting of such variance is not to serve the convenience of the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The Planning Commission also heard a little bit about flexibility for the RPUD regulations. Although flexibility may be something to take into consideration, the standards set forth in the statute say within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with certain characteristics. The characteristics of this potential building is that it requires numerous variances that are broad in their scope. The project Page 8 of 14