Laserfiche WebLink
4 , <br />\ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, JULY 19,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Gundlach introduced the application for commercial site plan review in order to conduct <br />improvements to the existing building. The applicant requested the following: <br />1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct a new entrance <br />at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a game room (Section <br />78-642). <br />2) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with <br />this application will not increase the hardcover above what currently exists (Section 78-1288). <br />3) Structural coverage variance to allow 23% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 20% <br />currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to require a variance to this <br />requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage at 16% to 26% in the <br />past (Section 78-1403). <br />4) A parking stall variance to allow 104 parking stalls when 133 stalls are required and 72 stalls <br />currently exist (Section 78-1516). <br />5) Parking setback variance to allow the existing gravel lot (to be converted to formalized paved <br />parking) to maintain a 10’ front yard setback from Shoreline Drive (Co. Rd. 15) when 20 ’ is <br />normally required (Section 78-646 (c)). <br />Gundlach referred to significant points in the Background (Page 2) and Issues for Discussion (Pages <br />2- 3) of the July 19, 2004 Staff Report. She emphasized there were a number of issues with the <br />application beyond the structural coverage, parking and hardcover. These issues pertain specifically <br />to the uses existing and proposed and whether those uses, such as a game room, are permitted under <br />the current Zoning Ordinance. Gundlach recommended it should be first determined whether the uses <br />should be permitted prior to further consideration of structural or hardcover requirements. Also, if <br />the proposed addition is an expansion of an existing non-conforming use. <br />Mr. Keaveny corrected staff s introduction of his application by explaining that he did not plan to <br />remove beams along one main wall of the building or opening up an interior area. He stated there <br />were no plans to change the existing building except for the one door that goes into the crib. <br />Page 7 of 18 <br />.'-i <br />(