08-15-2011 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

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