09/20/2010 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

� f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 20, 2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated if the applicant provides a plan that shows they are unable to park two vehicles on the property,which may be what Commissioner Schoenzeit is referring to,but that the City does allow for two cars to be parked in a driveway. Gaffron stated the City has not determined whether one car or two cars are a necessity. Feuss stated she is not comfortable with recommending approval of the application given the Supreme Court ruling and that she has a dif�cult time finding that there is no reasonable use of the property without a garage. Feuss stated she would like the City Council to determine whether there is a hardship that exists. Commissioners Berg and Leskinen indicated they are in agreement with Commissioner Feuss and • that the applicants have reasonable use of the property. Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3467, Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Avenue,for an attached garage without the porch,and to request the City Council determine whether a hardship exists for a garage. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 3,Berg,Leskinen,and Feuss opposed. MOTION FAILS. 2. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC.,3421 TO 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN,6:55 P.M.—6:56 P.M. Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#10-3468,Dennis Batty on behalf of Brook Investment Group,LLC,3421 Shoreline Drive, at the request of the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. #10-3485 PAUL LARSON,3268 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 6:56 P.M. —7:17 P.M. Paul Larson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot width and a lot area variance in order to construct a new residence on the property. The subject property is substandard in area and in width for a lot within the LR-1C-1 zoning district. Further,the property does not meet the 80 percent minimum requirement for an administrative lot area and lot width approval as provided by City Code Section 78-72(b)(1). The property is landlocked and does not have frontage on the lake or on a public roadway. The access to the property is over an easement on an outlot. An access easement for two lake lots also runs along the entire eastern portion of the property. The applicant has proposed a home which meets all of the required setbacks and hardcover requirements. Without variances for lot area and lot width, a home of any size could not be constructed on the properly. Page 4