Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, August 17, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 6 of 29 <br /> <br />(higher), it doesn’t seem like there is that option with the 30-foot maximum height ordinance. He said he <br />would agree with Kirchner’s motion. <br /> <br />Ressler said naturally they wouldn’t want to create another variance application, or part of the variance <br />with any sort of height, but his observation is that height restrictions have gotten a bit more flexible than <br />they have been in the past. <br /> <br />Erickson said if he understands correctly, they’re asking for a redesign to remove the 2,000 square foot <br />footprint. <br /> <br />Ressler said they are trying not to, but he is seeking feedback to see if there is a recommendation that <br />supports Staff’s recommendation, supporting the variances at hand with the exception of the structure, so <br />that would be the lot area, lot width, hardcover and setbacks with a denial on structural. He said if they’re <br />going to deny the application as applied which is traditionally what the Commission will do because they <br />don’t want to redesign the application on the fly, he wants to know if all the Commissioners agree that <br />they’re in support of lot area, lot width, hardcover and setbacks with the exception of structure. <br /> <br />Erickson said he would go with that. <br /> <br />Ressler noted that Kirchner had been heard so asked Bollis. <br /> <br />Bollis said he agrees with Staff on the application. <br /> <br />Gettman agreed. <br /> <br />2. LA20-000045 MAJID FEHRESTI, 3416 SHORELINE DRIVE, APPEAL OF ZONING <br />DECISION, 6:33 P.M. - 7:31 P.M. <br /> <br />Majid Fehresti, Applicant, was present. <br /> <br />Staff presented a summary of packet information. Barnhart closed by saying the Planning Commission <br />should review the information and determine if staff applied the zoning code incorrectly. The options <br />available to the Planning Commission are: 1) Staff was correct in applying the zoning ordinance, a <br />Conditional Use Permit is required; 2) Staff was incorrect in applying the zoning ordinance, the use is an <br />accessory use. [The Commission must identify what use is the principal use.]; 3) Staff was incorrect in <br />applying the zoning ordinance, but the use is not listed, and therefore is prohibited. a.) The Commission <br />could suggest that an ordinance amendment is appropriate which would identify the described use as a <br />permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zoning district. <br /> <br />Ressler summarized and noted looking at the application and hearing what Barnhart said, he thinks the <br />biggest concerns that Staff has are the limitations to the space that this property is occupying, for <br />example, as the Applicant has stated in their application, and will be able to talk about this when they are <br />called up for the Applicant presentation. He noted the Commission doesn’t have a classification of how it <br />is described in the application and there is also difficulty in understanding whether they want to allow that <br />use in the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an area that is designated for retail. <br /> <br />Barnhart answered yes, but the discussion on the appropriateness of a potential change would come with <br />that proposed change and he’s not asking the Commission to do that analysis at this stage.