01-20-1998 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

y MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 • -(#2 - #2290 Steven and Elaine Silus Continued) The space for backing out of the driveway is proposed at 24', where 21' would be allowed without the conditional use permit. Typically, 30' is recommended for a side-loading garage. Van Zomeren clarified that the application is not for a variance but for a conditional use permit, which has different standards. The use is authorized in the zoning code with performance standards. Grading within 5' of a lot line is allowed as a CUP. The Planning Commissioners are to decide whether this grading should be allowed. Van Zomeren reviewed the analysis presented in the packet. It was noted that the neighbors object to the retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. Van Zomeren noted the need for proper turning radius. Variances were granted in March, 1997, for the property. The structure meets the 10' side setback. Typically, normal grading for a new home and driveway does not require a CUP. The building inspector determined that grading within 5' of the property line is not normal or customary. One concern is whether the grading will impact the amount of drainage on adjacent property. Van Zomeren reviewed Staffs recommendation asking for consideration of issues as laid 411 out in the packet. If the Planning Commissioners vote in the negative, findings are required. Van Zomeren said the neighbors, the Spilseth's are out of town and ask that consideration be given to their comments made in their letter, which was included in the packet. Silus had no additional comments at this time. Joan Fitzpatrick, a friend of the Spilseth's, said the Spilseth's were against the driveway being 2'from the property line. She indicated exhaust fumes would gather from this location. The Spilseths object to losing the combined driveway, increasing the elevation, and potentially increasing runoff. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, asked why the application was not considered a variance request. Van Zomeren said the application has always been for a CUP and no hardship substantiation is then required. McMillan asked if a driveway can be located at the property lot line. Van Zomeren replied that this could occur, but in this case, the grade was being changed and was not considered normal or customary. She indicated the problem was created by the surveyor's use of topographical maps, which can var 2', which on a narrow lot such as the subject • property can be unreliable. Van Zomeren noted that conditions can be placed on the CUP. If the conditions cannot be met, the CUP can be denied. 3