Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,June 15,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> whether it is a boy or girl. He is talking about factual metrics of the practical difficulty which is created <br /> by adding another garage stall. <br /> Erickson,referencing the Applicant's photograph,said it shows the width of the street appears to be quite <br /> narrow. He asked if Staff knew the pavement width at that location. <br /> Curtis said she did not know the width at the particular location. She stated there are varying widths of <br /> pavement on Casco Point Road; she could provide the answer,but not today. <br /> Erickson stated that from the photo it appears narrow, and he is willing to believe the Applicant's <br /> statement that it is very narrow and limited for thru-traffic. With that in mind,it affects his opinion as far <br /> as the variance for the driveway, because what they are doing by having an adequate driveway provides <br /> an opportunity for off-street parking. On-street parking does not appear to be a very good option in the <br /> location. He is leaning towards supporting all of the variances, including the hardcover. The 2%over the <br /> recommended limit is a relatively small price to pay for the public benefit of off-street parking. <br /> Bollis said he tends to echo Erickson's opinion in this case and is in favor of approval given the safety <br /> aspect of it.The Applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate the hardcover as much as they can <br /> with the pavers and the consideration of moving the house back from the lake and the lot lines,etc. He <br /> thinks it is a pretty reasonable request. <br /> Kirchner stated he agrees with Bollis as far as the appreciation the Applicants have made in regards to <br /> reducing some of the hardcover with the paver pathway and pulling the house back six feet from the line. <br /> He struggles because of the Applicant's own admission that it is a matter of convenience; he does not <br /> know that it falls into the City's practical difficulties then. He noted at the last meeting a family was <br /> denied the convenience of a third stall based on hardcover;the Commission recommended denial. The <br /> Commission seems to be stuck on the hardcover being for the driveway or for the third stall; he thinks it <br /> is important to consider that the hardcover is all-inclusive. The variance is not for the driveway;the <br /> variance is not for the third stall;the variance is for the project in general and all aspects of the project. He <br /> does not know if hardcover can be reduced elsewhere throughout the project. Based on his thoughts, he <br /> does not believe he would support the hardcover variance but would support the lot width and lot area <br /> variance. <br /> Gettman commented that the hardcover is the real question, and whether or not having the third stall is <br /> overcoming the practical difficulty of having a narrow road in front of their house. He is still struggling <br /> with it and will listen more to everybody to decide how to vote. <br /> Ressler stated structure is really difficult to overlook versus hardcover, which is a little easier to <br /> understand. He recalled there were Applicants on North Shore Drive where the Commission was looking <br /> at denying the garage stall but they were able to give hardcover for parking, allowing the ability to park <br /> versus adding a stall. He thinks part of the practical difficulty is on the onus of the public; it becomes a <br /> public practical difficulty if the parking spills over into the street,with the element of Casco Point Road <br /> probably not being in a position to expand anytime soon. He is in support of the application for that <br /> reason, inclusive of the hardcover. Regardless of the outcome,the Commission has made some good <br /> notes for the City Council to consider. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. <br /> Page 4 of 19 <br />