Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 3 of 35  <br />  <br />Thiesse stated that could be accomplished with six feet, which is what the Planning Commission had <br />directed at the last meeting. The applicant last time proposed 12 feet and is now proposing nine feet. <br />Thiesse stated in his view a standard sedan would fit in the 16.2 feet. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if the City has a minimum garage depth. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it does not. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated 20 feet would be tight and 24 feet is reasonable. <br /> <br />Schwingler commented he also owns a Suburban that does not fit into his garage. Schwinger stated he is <br />struggling with moving the garage closer to the lake with the setback variance and that it will alter the <br />essential character of the neighborhood. Schwingler stated he understands it is a difficult property to <br />work with and that there are trees nearby. Schwingler stated the property owner could still park cars in <br />the driveway even with a full-size garage and that parking cars outside is not a hardship. <br /> <br />Leskinen noted the original proposal has only been reduced by three feet and does not alleviate the <br />potential turnaround problems, which was also raised at the last meeting. <br /> <br />McGrann asked if six feet would be acceptable to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Leskinen noted six feet is what the Commission discussed last time. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted the applicant needs to demonstrate a practical difficulty and that an 18-foot garage is a <br />practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated a 24-foot garage is not a practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Leskinen noted the garage is currently 18 feet. <br /> <br />Wang stated even if they do not do the addition, they are already encroaching towards the lake. Wang <br />stated if they are forced to reduce the garage down by another three feet, they might as well tear down the <br />garage and rebuild a new one, but that he does not have the money to do that. <br /> <br />Wang stated the current proposal will not make the situation any worse. Wang stated due to the tight <br />constraints with the land, their proposal will not make it any worse. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked why the applicant is proposing nine feet versus six feet after the discussion at the last <br />Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />Wang stated their contractor indicated six feet would not be sufficient, which is the reason why they <br />stayed with the nine feet. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if there is a time constraint on this application. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the 60-day review period will expire on December 3 and that she is planning to take the <br />additional 60 days the City is allowed. The applicants have indicated they would like to take some time <br />before they go before the City Council. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/21/14* <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/2013 <br />[Page 3 of 35]