Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 18,1998 <br />(#2 - #2340 Robert Waade - Continued) <br />Smith commented on drainage issues to which the applicant replied there would be no problem with <br />directing drainage to the pond, and he is willing to work with the City Engineer to resolve any <br />drainage issues. <br />Stoddard stated various neighbors had comments about drainage, and Gaffron noted it is not the <br />obligation of this developer to solve neighborhood problems, but the developer cannot create any <br />new ones. Gaffron suggested additional work needs to be done on the grading plan. The applicant <br />noted he would make whatever revisions are required. <br />Stoddard asked if the applicant could alleviate the driveway variance issues. The applicant discussed <br />moving the drivew ay or redesigning the garage layout to avoid the variance if that was necessary. <br />Smith asked for public comments. David Dalvey of 3230 Bohns Point Lane stated he had previously <br />presented the Commission w ith a signed petition with 23 names of people who do not want multi­ <br />family housing, and had a 21 name addendum to this petition. He asked that the variances that are <br />required not be granted. <br />Sam Marfield, 2455 North Shore Drive, stated Orono should not promote rental property. Smith <br />asked if variances are required whether or not a single home or multi-family dwelling is placed on <br />this lot. Gaffron responded affirmatively, noting that most of the variances are a result of the <br />front/back lot configuration, and would be required even if Lot 2 was designated as a single family <br />lot. Gaffron noted a duplex layout change would be needed to avoid the driveway variance. Smith <br />asked what would change if this was a single family home rather than a duplex. Gaffron replied that <br />the 1/2 acre area is required for either use, and a width variance would be needed for either use if the <br />North Shore Drive frontage was considered the front. <br />Berg said the Council needs to determine what is the highest and best use of the site. McMillan <br />stated a duplex is allowed by code for this zone. HawTi said the applicant has the right to build a <br />duplex, to which Stoddard agreed it is zoned for three units and multi-family. Stoddard stated his <br />concerns surround drainage issues, but he has no objections. McMillan said the variances are due <br />to the narrow lot, and the major issue is drainage, which can be resolved. Lindquist said he would <br />prefer a single family rather than multi-family use of the site. Applicant replied that if he did do a <br />single family residence, there would still be rental issues. <br />A resident would like to see 2 single family homes and asked that variances not be provided. Smith <br />said there is no reason she cannot approve the duplex use. Hawn said it is a permitted use and the <br />applicant has a right to that use.