Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 19,1999 <br /><#2469/2470 Steve and Jo Webster, continued) <br />City Staff could support additional structure on the property based on the fact that the Applicants <br />are proposing to remove an existing garage which is currently located partially on Dickenson Street. <br />Staff could support an alignment that would allow for a shorter distance than required between the <br />new garage and the alley in that City has approved similar requests In the past. However, Staff <br />is not in support of allowing structures to be located on a property line as proposed by the Applicant. <br />Lindquist commented that if the alley is vacated, It does allow for more options. Currently the <br />Applicant is looking at a three foot setback from the alley. <br />Webster inquired whether the alley can legally be replatted. <br />Lindquist stated the proper process must be followed for a lot line rearrangement, noting that he <br />would probably vote to deny the application as presented tonight. <br />Weinberger commented the Planning Commission could vote on the variances with the <br />understanding that the alley may be vacated in the future. <br />Webster stated he did not want the alley to become an obstacle in this proposal. <br />Mr. Larson indicated he is willing to work with the Websters, noting that he does not feel he should <br />incur the cost for vacating the alley. <br />Smith commented that there are Issues to this application that are troublesome and need to be <br />resolved. <br />Hawn remarked that the alley issue should really be resolved first. Hawn indicated in her view the <br />proposed structure is located too close to the alley. <br />Smith indicated she was in agreement with Hawn. <br />Stoddard remarked that the Planning Commission would probably look at this application differently <br />if the alley were replatted. <br />Berg stated that the Planning Commission can only deal with what is presented tonight. <br />Gaffron remarked that the alley could be replatted, but the Applicants might incur some expense <br />if utilities need to be relocated. Gaffron commented that this appiication is proposing to remove an <br />existing garage that lies within the right-of-way and reiocate it near the aliey. If the alley is not <br />relocated and the Applicants use the aliey to back up, it may create some visibiiity issues. <br />Webster commented that in 1993, the Pianning Commission had passed a variance for the building <br />which is now located on the City’s right-of-way, and this proposal is improving what currently exists. <br />Berg stated she would like to see some written documentation on that variance before she would <br />take it into consideration. <br />Lindquist commented that the way the application is being presented tonight, it will probably be <br />denied. <br />Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would like the Pianning Commission to go ahead and vote on <br />this appiication or whether they would like it to be tabled to allow them additional time to revise their <br />Page 18