Laserfiche WebLink
, <br /> . <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING CONINIISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,July 18,2011 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Peters indicated at times there is some parking on the roadway but that his fi-iends park in his driveway or <br /> on the other side of the road. <br /> Levang asked what the neighbors think of this project. <br /> Peters indicated the neighbor to the north is in favor of the property and that he has not spoken to the <br /> neighbor to the south. The garage is very consistent with the other houses in the neighborhood. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the issue that he has is the 17 percent structural coverage being proposed and that it is <br /> the Planning Commiss.ion's job to make sure that structures are not constructed over the limit when there <br /> is not a hardship or a practical difficulty demonstrated. Schoenzeit stated he cannot support increasing <br /> the structural coverage. <br /> Feuss noted the existing structural coverage is 16.9 percent. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicant is tearing down the existing garage and that it should not exceed the 15 <br /> percent siructural coverage given the size of the house. Schoenzeit noted the house is 375 square feet <br /> over on the structural coverage. <br /> Thiesse asked how wide the existing garage is. <br /> Peters indicated it is approximately 18'x 22'or 23'. <br /> Thiesse stated an 18 foot wide garage in Minnesota is really not a functional garage. The applicant is not <br /> looking to add on to the house and should be entitled to have a garage that is useful and functional. <br /> Feuss noted Staff has raised that point in that report and that in her mind there are practical difficulties <br /> with respect to the garage. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether a precedent would be set if they grant the additional structural coverage. <br /> Curtis stated with every variance the Planning Commission looks specifically at the challenges presented <br /> with each individual lot and that the Planning Commission makes variances specific to the property based <br /> on its own merits. <br /> Gaffron indicated he is in agreement with that but that there will always be someone who will look at this <br /> application and say that he also is entitled to a variance. Gaffron stated the findings by the Planning <br /> Commission will need to be specific and based on this lot. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission could say you are getting the variance based on <br /> circumstances associated with the lot. <br /> Page 6 <br />