Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 16,2019 <br /> 6:30 p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated there are other people who want to include the public right-of-way but that gets counted <br /> out. <br /> Quinlivan stated that is a practical difficulty because most properties do not have a county road or a <br /> lakeside road and making exceptions for that is what the variance process is for. <br /> Thiesse noted he misspoke earlier when he said he was of the opinion that two or three homes on that lot <br /> would be better for the neighborhood, but the City does not allow this lot to be subdivided. <br /> Ressler stated part of the job of the Planning Commission is to provide feedback to the applicant. Overall <br /> this is a tough lot to build on,and the feedback he has heard is that if the structural coverage is reduced to <br /> 20 percent,that would help reduce the other encroachments. <br /> Quinlivan asked if they would consider the road to be a practical difficulty. <br /> Ressler commented there might be some on the Planning Commission that think it is <br /> Gettman stated he would consider it a practical difficulty and he would include that in the equation. <br /> Bollis stated he feels the same way. <br /> McCutcheon asked whether they are planning on building the retaining wall. <br /> Quinlivan indicated it was something that was drawn in on the site plan and they would be willing to <br /> eliminate that. <br /> McCutcheon stated the driveway difficulty is gaining steam and having a turnaround is desirable from a <br /> safety standpoint. This property consists of three lots and they are proposing to maximize the envelope, <br /> which makes him somewhat uneasy,but that the developer has made some valid points. <br /> Erickson stated one of the practical difficulties is that the difficulty cannot be one of the applicant's own <br /> making. In this case this is new construction and it is entirely of the applicant's own making. In that <br /> situation, a big increase in hardcover is not justifiable under that standard and in his view state law <br /> requires the Planning Commission to follow those standards. <br /> Ressler stated the shallow lot makes it difficult and that they should consider making their proposal a little <br /> less intense. <br /> Olson stated it has never been his intention to split the lots. Other homes in the neighborhood are literally <br /> on the back line, and to hear that their proposed setback is not good enough, is surprising. Olson stated <br /> they attempted to do what they thought was the most amenable to everybody and it is interesting to hear <br /> the comments on the setback. The neighbor next door has a 1.7-foot setback,which was authorized last <br /> year, and they are talking 10 feet. <br /> Ressler noted that was a very minor adjustment on the neighboring house. Pulling the garage back in this <br /> situation is a step in the right direction and helps mitigate the need for variances. <br /> Page 16 of 24 <br />