Laserfiche WebLink
. MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 15,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3196 PAT McNAUGHTON/ED HAMM,CONTINUED) <br /> Jurgens stated the underlying issues would be addressed in more detail with a preliminary plat. Jurgens <br /> stated he would like to see the setbacks and the location of the house. <br /> Kroeger inquired.whether this proposal would give the strip of land to Mr.Hamm. <br /> McNaughton stated it would not. McNaughton stated the transaction to acquire that land is contingent <br /> upon the lot line rearrangement. <br /> Motion failed due to lack of second. <br /> Rahn moved to recommend approval of Application#06-3196,Pat McNaughton/Edward Hamm, <br /> 1391 Fox Street/1401 Shoreline Drive,granting of a lot line rearrangement. <br /> Kempf inquired whether the average lakeshore setback issue should be addressed. <br /> Rahn stated in his view it is premature to address that at this time and that it would be more appropriate <br /> to discuss it at the time a house is proposed for this lot. <br /> Gaffron noted as part of the application and approval process,variances are being granted to lot area for <br /> this lot. Gaf&on pointed out that the applicant may not need to reappear before the Planning <br /> Commission if a house is designed that is in conformance with City regulations. Gaffron stated he <br /> would use the average setback line as currently defined in his report if someone submits a proposal for <br /> this lot. <br /> Gaffron stated there is some merit in the discussion on whether the provisions to allow the parking area <br /> go away, and that the restoration of the property may be addressed as part of this process in addition to <br /> the other items raised tonight. <br /> Bremer stated those conditions are normally required with a preliminary plat but that it is a little more <br /> difficult with this application since a house is not being proposed at the present time. <br /> McNaughton stated it is not his intent to have parking in that area in the future and that this lot will <br /> become a benefit to the neighborhood. <br /> Kempf concurred that it is likely this lot will become a benefit but that he has a concern with some of <br /> these issues not being addressed tonight. <br /> Jurgens stated the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to require screening and land <br /> alterations as part of a conditional use permit. Jurgens reiterated that the applicant should submit <br /> additional information prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the owner of the property would be required to remove the parking area. <br /> PAGE 19 <br />