01-27-2014 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 18,2013 6:30 o'dock p.m. Thiesse stated that could be accomplished with six feet,which is what the Planning Commission had directed at the last meeting. The applicant last time proposed 12 feet and is now proposing nine feet. Thiesse stated in his view a standard sedan would fit in the 16.2 feet. Landgraver asked if the City has a minimum garage depth. Curtis indicated it does not. Thiesse stated 20 feet would be tight and 24 feet is reasonable. Schwingler commented he also owns a Suburban that'does not fit into his garage. ,Schwinger stated he is struggling with moving the garage closer to the lake with��he set�ack variance and that it will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Sehwingler stated he understands it is a difficult property to work with and that there are trees nearby. Schwingler stated the propertyr o��ner could still park cars in the driveway even with a full-size garage and that parki�ig cars outside is�not��a hardship. Leskinen noted the original proposal has only been reduced�by three feet and does not alleviate the potential turnaround problems, which was also raised at the�.last meeting. McGrann asked if six feet would be acceptabl�to the Pl�nning Gommission. Leskinen noted six feet is what thc Commission dis��ssed last time. Thiesse noted the applicant needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty and that an 18-foot garage is a practieal difficulty. Thiesse indicated�a 24-foot garage�i�not�`�a practical difficulty. Leskinen noted the garage is currently>�l8 feet. Wang stated even if�they do��not do the addition,�they are already encroaching towards the lake. Wang stated if they° are foi-ced to reduee the garage down by another three feet,they might as well tear down the gara�e,and�rebuild a new one;'but that he does not have the money to do that. Wang��atcd the current proposal will not make the situation any worse. Wang stated due to the tight constra�ints with the land,their proposal will not make it any warse. Leskinen asked�vvhy the applicant is proposing nine feet versus six feet after the discussion at the last Planning Commissic�n meeting. Wang stated their contractor indicated six feet would not be sufficient, which is the reason why they stayed with the nine feet. Landgraver asked if there is a time constraint on this application. Curtis indicated the 60-day review period will expire on December 3 and that she is planning to take the additiona160 days the City is allowed. The applicants have indicated they would like to take some time before they go before the City Council. Page 3 of 35