Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 <br />( #5 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) <br />Both the current owner, Steve Gardiner, and the new owner, Winfield Stephens, were <br />present. Stephens said the vacation was suggested to minimize impact of variances with <br />the proposed improvements. The vacation had also been recommended by Staff. He said <br />the area where the alley is located seems to be part of the lawn, and the entire detached <br />garage is located within the alley. <br />Peterson asked if the issue of the vacation was frivolous on the part of the neighbors or <br />not. Mabusth said she had just been made aware of their interests. <br />Peterson asked the applicant if he was aware that he would need to combine lots 1 -4 <br />Stephens said that was not an issue. <br />Lindquist asked the applicant if he did not gain the vacation of the alley, if he still wished <br />to proceed, and Stephens advised he did wish to proceed regardless of the outcome of the <br />alley. <br />Peterson said the applicant could not proceed without the 30' alley as both development <br />plans show garage remaining in alley. Option #2, Mabusth said entailed an issue of impact <br />• to the neighbor if the addition was to the east. The Wicklands report an impact on their <br />views. There is no legal claim to the view but option #2 also involves new construction at <br />3.5' from north side lot line. Setbacks and hardcover variance are less intense with the <br />inclusion of the additional area from the vacated alley. <br />Peterson asked the applicant what he would prefer. <br />Stephens said he preferred option #2 in order to save 2 big oak trees in front yard. Option <br />#1 does require the removal of 2 large maples. The old owner said the oak trees were <br />beautiful. He noted that one of the trees was 7' in circumference and would be a shame to <br />lose it. <br />Hawn asked if the addition couldn't be altered and sit where the diseased maple is located <br />but skirt the oak and save the other maple. Stephens said it could but would be within the <br />50' street setback from County Road, which he thought was more critical. Mabusth said it <br />would be difficult to approve an encroached of the 50' setback. She noted that we are <br />dealing with limited building envelope. <br />Lindquist said he had a problem with 3 -1 /2' on the north lot line and then doubling the <br />amount. The old owner, Steve Gardiner, remarked that this was the way it had always <br />been. Lindquist said although this was true, he could not imagine doubling the area. The <br />applicant and owner said they had a notarized copy of the easement that provided access <br />• along the north lot line. <br />12 <br />