Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> February 21,2001 <br /> (#2654 The Lion Group, Continued) <br /> to the north of the site. Gaffron stated a new residence can be constructed meeting the City's <br /> other requirements. Gaffron noted the Applicants will need to meet the 25 percent hardcover <br /> limit. Gaffron indicated there are other lots in the area which are below one acre. <br /> Bull had nothing further to add to City Staff's report. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with this application. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the existing detached garage will remain. <br /> Bull stated at the present time they are considering two different plans; one which would result in <br /> the garage remaining and the other resulting in the garage being removed and a possible tuck under <br /> garage being built. <br /> Mabusth cautioned the Applicant that if the principal structure is removed,the garage would <br /> become non-conforming and would be illegal at that point. Mabusth stated it was her understanding <br /> the bank to the lakeshore has been restored in the past. Mabusth inquired whether the Applicant <br /> knows where the access stair is to the lakeshore. <br /> Bull stated the stairway is located in the northeast side. Bull stated there is a partial stairway that <br /> exists at the present time about halfway down the hill, with a path circling down the remainder of <br /> the bank. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the Applicant has any plans to change that area of the property. <br /> Bull stated they are not contemplating any changes to that area. <br /> Hawn stated a variance would need to be granted if the garage were to remain. Hawn stated the <br /> garage may still not be acceptable due to its location to Cherry Street. <br /> Gaffron stated it was Staff's expectation that the garage would be removed as part of this <br /> project. Gaffron stated if it is the Applicant's desire that the garage remain,that would result in <br /> additional issues that would need to be addressed. Gaffron stated if the garage is to remain,the <br /> application should probably remain open because a variance will be needed to allow the garage to <br /> remain. <br /> Bull stated he did discuss this issue with Weinberger and was told he would need to meet the <br /> 25 percent hardcover limit regardless if the garage remained or was removed. <br /> Hawn commented the Planning Commission typically does not grant variances on new <br /> construction. <br /> Berg stated the garage is located too close to the property line. <br /> Gaffron stated it is currently located on the lot line. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />