Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 16,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 2. 15-3769 CHRIS LAPPEN AND KALLYN BIALOWAS,3409 EAST LAKE STREET, <br /> VARIANCES,6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. (continued) <br /> 5. The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared to many <br /> other lots, due to its size and the 2-acre zoning standards,this lot functionally has no buildable <br /> area as compared to other lots which are wider, deeper, and have more flexibility. <br /> 6. The property is unique in that very few lots in Orono of this size abut a creek that is considered as <br /> lakeshore, but this condition does affect other nearby lots along Eastlake Street which are subject <br /> to the same regulations. <br /> 7. The ability to have a garage would appear to be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of <br /> any substantial property right. <br /> 8. Granting of the variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and appears to be <br /> generally in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. <br /> 9. Granting the variances in order to have a minimum sized garage is necessary to alleviate a <br /> demonstrated practical difficulty. <br /> Gaffron noted a comment was received on November 9 from a neighbor in support of the project. In <br /> addition,the neighbor across the street called into City Hall and expressed his support of the project. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the <br /> impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: <br /> 1. The applicants should remove all hardcover items as proposed, including reconstruction of the <br /> driveway to meet the proposed hardcover percentage of 48.9 percent. <br /> 2. Grading and drainage plan to be carefully implemented to avoid impact to neighboring properties. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the ten feet between structures is due to a fire code or a state code. <br /> Gaffron stated the two primary reasons are fire safety between buildings and to maintain the visual <br /> character of the neighborhood. <br /> The Planning Commission had no further questions for Staff. <br /> Page 3 of 29 <br />