Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 20,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated to his knowledge the City cannot take away those rights and that he would have to check <br /> with the City Attorney. <br /> Erickson indicated he is leaning towards granting the variance but subject to the stipulation that there will <br /> not be a second structure on the property. <br /> McCutcheon commented he is not a fan of this ordinance since it does not take into account a situation <br /> like this. The neighbors approve of the proposal, it is environmentally friendly, no additional driveway is <br /> needed, and the structure will be well screened. The only negative is it is against the ordinance, but he is <br /> allowed to build another 999 square foot structure. McCutcheon stated it is a good-looking garage and he <br /> is all for it. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. <br /> McCutcheon stated common sense-wise the proposal makes sense. It does not seem like the applicant is <br /> asking for much and that he agrees with every point the applicant made. <br /> Libby commented he is a boat and trailer guy but that the City has stipulations and guidelines for good <br /> reasons and Staff's recommendation is not to grant it. <br /> Erickson indicated he would agree with Commissioner McCutcheon, especially since the applicant would <br /> be giving up his rights to construct a second building on the property. <br /> Ressler noted the City cannot prohibit him from building another structure. <br /> Barnhart stated Staff will verify with the City Attorney on whether such a condition could be imposed but <br /> that Staff would like to hear comments from the Planning Commission on the application outside of that <br /> condition. <br /> Bollis stated what he sees makes a lot of sense, but it does not fit within the code. Bollis indicated he <br /> would be in favor of allowing the variance with the condition that there is no secondary building. <br /> Gettman asked why there is a 1,200 square foot restriction on an individual accessory building and how <br /> that number was picked, especially when another 999 square foot structure can be built on the lot. <br /> Oakden stated one of the purposes is the size of the lot. Since this lot is under three acres, it would fall <br /> under that threshold. <br /> Curtis stated the table is a sliding scale and is based on the size of the lot. The amount of allowable <br /> square footage increases as the lot size gets bigger. Curtis indicates she does not know what the rationale <br /> was when that limit was created in the 1990s. <br /> Barnhart stated Staff did not change that ratio with the latest amendment. Staff encounters that question <br /> quite a bit and runs into situations where the next applicant will come forward and want one extra foot. <br /> Page 9 of 16 <br />