Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 20, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 20 of 25  <br />  <br />Gaffron pointed out the boat club does not own the main site and it operates out of the main site with a <br />lease. If the boat club purchases the two residential properties, they would not be able to use the <br />residential properties for business until it is zoned commercial. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated they would also have a responsibility to the City to keep the residential properties in <br />shape and used appropriately. <br /> <br />Bennett stated in her view the Planning Commission should not allow an increase in the use until the <br />ownership is figured out. <br /> <br />Bennett moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend denial of Application #13-3606, Luke <br />Kujawwa of Your Boat Club on behalf of M.G. Kaminski, 1444 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use <br />Permit Amendment. <br /> <br />Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to table the application until further information can be obtained <br />regarding the residential property. Leskinen encouraged the applicant to address some of these issues <br />following the Planning Commission meeting and that she cannot, in good conscious, approve an increase <br />in use when there are these large neighborhood issues on the table. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what she would be looking to gain by tabling the application and what would be the <br />weighing factor in possibly approving the application. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she would like clarity on the ownership, what that means in terms of who is legally <br />responsible, and if there is any legal issue with the parking contract. Leskinen asked if it matters whose <br />name is on the lease as it relates to the parking agreement. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the parking agreement is attached to the property. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if the difference between denying the application and tabling it is the cost to re-file an <br />application. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a tabled application could be brought back at some point if the issues are resolved, as <br />opposed to a denial, which would take it before the City Council where they can either table it, send it <br />back to the Planning Commission, or deny it. <br /> <br />Lemke noted the applicant could also withdraw the application. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated even if the ownership issue is resolved, he would be inclined to deny the expansion <br />until the applicant has a track record of properly using the residential property and the neighbors gave the <br />application even lukewarm support. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he cannot support it given both neighbors’ complaints. Thiesse stated he also cannot, in <br />good conscious, table it until the ownership of the residential property is resolved given the other issues <br />that have been raised. <br /> <br />VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Landgraver opposed. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013 <br />[Page 20 of 25]