Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> house longer and accumulate more things for yard work and lake supplies, it's getting a bit cramped and is <br /> only going to get worse as their family grows. <br /> Ressler asked the applicants to be available during their discussion if they called for them to answer any <br /> questions,which they agreed to do. <br /> McCutcheon said he looked at the aerial photo of the neighborhood and saw there were some houses with <br /> garages that are closer to the road than the applicants',although they may be grandfathered in.He stated <br /> safety is a huge concern and he is glad Staff recognized that and was willing to meet the applicants <br /> halfway in allowing the hardcover to extend. He said the applicants'point is valid.They just bought the <br /> house and knew the situation, although they didn't know the nuances of extending the garage and the <br /> complications that arise.He understands why the applicant is before the Planning Commission, especially <br /> with a baby on the way. It is a busy road, and he would like to do anything to help improve safety. <br /> Bollis said he agrees with McCutcheon. In looking at it,he can see the practical difficulty, and some sort <br /> of reconfiguration needs to happen in order for them to utilize the driveway in a safe manner.He is in <br /> favor of it. In a perfect world he would like to see the 18.1-foot setback be no less than the 21.7 the <br /> neighbor has, but he does not know if that is possible.He is generally in favor of the proposed addition of <br /> the garage and driveway section. <br /> Libby said he tends to concur with Bollis and McCutcheon. Shared driveways seem to be very difficult to <br /> work out. Regardless of how they are configured,they pose some type of deficiency versus private, <br /> unshared driveways. The applicants knew that was the existing condition when they bought the property. <br /> He does not have a problem with the proposed addition or the request.He noted the adjoining property <br /> seems to have a further encroachment into the setback and asked if that set any sort of precedent on a <br /> street side average setback. He asked if that gives any net benefit to this applicants' request for a variance. <br /> Curtis said she thinks each lot is looked at individually. The two properties used to be three. They lost the <br /> one lot to make two lots larger. 4725 was developed first. The 4725 lot has less of a constriction on the <br /> lake side due to the bluff because the subject lot pulls up into the lot. The drainageway on the west side is <br /> quite steep,so the bluff does wrap around, causing further setback concerns for the development of the <br /> lot, which is why the house is built the way it is. She would not say that someone else's variance approval <br /> would give a precedent to approve a variance on either lot unless it's an identical situation. She suggested <br /> to look at each lot on its own merits. <br /> Libby said he is looking at some way/method the Commission can temper this in a manner that would <br /> allow the applicants to have what they need without abusing or violating City Code. The safety issues <br /> enter into the equation.The idea of having to back out on a thoroughfare like North Shore Drive is tough <br /> and risky. If they have another method of doing that from a new garage, it may not change the safety <br /> issues.He does not have a solution but suggested discussing it further and taking it to a vote. <br /> Erickson stated that when the time comes to vote on a motion, this particular case might lend itself to two <br /> separate motions.He brought it up in part because Staff recommendation is to approve one set of <br /> variances and deny another set of variances, and one way to deal with that would be to have separate <br /> motions and separate votes.The variance Staff is recommending is the one involving hardcover, and that <br /> would give the applicants more driveway room to maneuver and get on and off of the busy road safely, <br /> which he is in favor of. He would see a clear hardship if that was not approved.As far as the setback <br /> variance for the three-car garage,the applicant pointed out he wasn't sure how much of a hardship that <br /> Page 13 of 29 <br />