Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 19,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated he would prefer to not have a separate application for the shed. <br /> Thiesse commented expanding the garage by two feet would make it a more standard garage and would <br /> be about equal to the square footage of the shed. <br /> Schoenzeit noted only approximately 25 percent of the shed is located on the property currently. <br /> Gaffron noted the rest of the shed is not counted towards the hardcover number. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would like to see a new application with regard to the shed, which would encourage <br /> the applicant to perhaps think about moving the square feet of the shed to the garage. <br /> Leskinen stated the motion could include either moving the shed to a conforming location or adding the <br /> square footage of the shed to the proposed garage and eliminating the shed. <br /> Ciliberto stated currently the shed is located on the railroad property and that they would not be opposed <br /> to adding that hardcover on to the proposed garage rather than submit a separate application for the shed. <br /> Ciliberto indicated they were attempting to relocate the shed off of the Railroad Authority's property. <br /> Gaffron noted they are allowed 1,500 square feet of structural coverage. Gaffron indicated they could add <br /> another 45 square feet and still be below the 1,500 square feet, which is the standard for this size lot. <br /> Thiesse stated the extra square feet will not make the house out of character with the neighborhood. <br /> Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to reduce hardcover and elimination of the shed is a more <br /> practical way to accomplish that. <br /> Lemke asked if there is a particular side of the garage that should be expanded given the setbacks. <br /> Gaffron stated if two feet is added at the north end of the garage, the structure will be approximately eight <br /> and a half feet from the lot line. <br /> Leskinen stated the applicants could be given the option of locating the shed in a conforming location or <br /> adding the square feet to the garage. <br /> Schwingler asked if the Planning Commission would need to see the application again. <br /> Gaffron stated if it requires a setback variance,the Planning Commission should address that tonight or <br /> the application should come back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated it will not meet the 10- <br /> foot setback on the east side but the garage will be conforming for the most part. <br /> Leskinen asked if the only conforming location for the shed would be within the swale. <br /> Gaffron indicated it is. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the increase in garage space should be allowed and that the Planning <br /> Commission should recognize that the applicant may need to come back with a request for a variance if <br /> they decide to relocate the shed. <br /> Page 7 of 31 <br />