Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 11 of 30  <br />  <br />McGrann asked what language he is referring to. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the neighbor’s attorney is arguing that the Special Lot Combination Agreement negates the <br />ability of the City to take any action until the Special Lot Combination Agreement is extinguished <br />through the subdivision process, which was earlier denied by the City Council. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the applicants’ attorney has suggested the pending lawsuit should be put on hold to review <br />the variances tonight. The City Council has suggested that it is important for them to understand what <br />variances would be necessary. Gaffron stated it appears there are too many unknowns at this point, and <br />given the request and the information submitted today, it may be appropriate to consider tabling rather <br />than moving the application forward. <br /> <br />Lemke asked what the two properties with the V or arrow indicate. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the two properties shown with the arrow are subject to a Special Lot Combination <br />Agreement and they are considered as a single lot. Gaffron stated technically that lot is not considered <br />vacant. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has to assume that Special Lot Combination Agreement is <br />real in that situation but not real in this situation. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated for the sake of this review, that is correct. <br /> <br />Lemke asked what the square footage is of the proposed house. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated they are talking about three levels. <br /> <br />Gronberg indicated the footprint is 1496 on the house, which includes the garage. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it would be 3,500 to 4,000 square feet of living space for the three levels, which would not <br />include the garage. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked if this is all hypothetical at this point. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it would be hypothetical because the City Council cannot grant those variances absent an <br />extinguishing of the Special Lot Combination. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the City Attorney feels that is okay. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the City Attorney believes this process is necessary before any next steps can be taken <br />and that final action on the variances cannot be taken unless the Special Lot Combination is extinguished. <br />Gaffron stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to listen to public comment and come to <br />whatever recommendation they feel appropriate. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if the lots are hypothetically split, whether the lot to the north would be split as well. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated it would not be. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 08/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 11 of 30]