Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,March 16,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart indicated that while it is important that the applicant develop alternatives,they have presented <br /> this proposal and this proposal is what gets voted on. <br /> Ressler said it becomes a slippery slope to try and redesign on the fly and it ends up being a pretty long <br /> meeting.Regardless of the Commission approving or denying,it will be brought to the City Council.The <br /> Commission needs to entertain what is in front of them and make a decision. <br /> Erickson commented that in the Application Summary it indicates the applicant is requesting the lake and <br /> average lakeshore setback variances. The City has held pretty firm regarding lake setback variances;the <br /> average lakeshore setback variances tend to happen more often. <br /> Ressler clarified that Erickson would be in support of the average lakeshore setback variance but would <br /> like to see a proposal that does not include the 75-foot setback. <br /> Erickson confirmed Ressler's statement. <br /> After discussion regarding options of approval,Barnhart indicated the Commissioners have provided <br /> feedback for the applicant in terms of what goes forward to City Council.Alternatively,the Commission <br /> could table the action and suggest the applicant change the application.He recommended voting on the <br /> application as presented. <br /> Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA20-00007 Paul Vogstrom,2709 Walters Port Lane, <br /> Variances.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Bollis). <br /> Barnhart noted the recommendation would go to the City Council at the first meeting in April. <br /> 4. LA20-000016 PAUL VOGSTROM,2710 PENCE LANE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- <br /> 7:22 P.M.-7:39 P.M. <br /> Paul Vogstrom,o/b/o the Property Owner, and Eric Vogstrom,Property Owner,were present. <br /> Staff presented a summary of packet information. She noted Staff recommends approval conditioned <br /> upon the property owners' agreement to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property addressing the <br /> plumbing and the status as an oversized accessory building,providing that the accessory building will not <br /> be: 1.Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code. 2. <br /> Used as a dwelling unless a guest house Conditional Use Permit is obtained. 3.Rented,leased or <br /> otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.4.Regarding future subdivision of the <br /> property: a.No future subdivision will be approved that places the oversized accessory building within a <br /> lot that has no principal building;b. If the property is subdivided,the oversized accessory building and <br /> principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for <br /> the given size of the oversized accessory building; c. In subdivision approval,the setback required for the <br /> oversized accessory building shall remain. <br /> Doepke referenced a letter which indicates,"it would be both irresponsible and naïve to consider issuing <br /> this permit based on the repeated violations on record,"and asked what the violations were. <br /> Oakden stated she believed the lot owner was still working on some shoreline restoration. <br /> Page 10 of 16 <br />