Laserfiche WebLink
NITNUTES OF TIIE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSLON M��TING <br /> Tuesd:►y, January 17,2006 - <br /> G:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> foot house constructed next door and the water runoff issues . Palm indicated those issues have si».ce <br /> been z-esolved by the installation of a gutter. Palm stated he did not want to�roceed fi�rther on the garage <br /> until those issues were addressed, which has resulted in some delay in his application. <br /> Palm indicated as far as not complying with tlie requiremenls,Palm stated he had tlle understanding he <br /> did provide what was rec�uired to Planner Gundlach. Palrn stated Gronberg was retained and those <br /> surveys were sugposed to have been provided to the City. <br /> Palm stated his sihtation is unic�ue in that there is a llill coming in and out of the driveway, which i�nakes it <br /> difficult to maneuver a car into a garage when it is icy or snorry out. Palm stated the rock�vall that was <br /> const�ucted was for decoration but that he would Ue willing to 11ter it if need be in order to push the <br /> garage further into the cun-ent driveway. Palm stated in his opinion that would make it difficult to Uacic <br /> out and he would prefer to leave the wall�vhere it ctm�ently is. <br /> Palm noted at the time he first applied for the variance,he was approved for a 5-foot setUack. Palm <br /> inquired�vhy he is now being required to comply with a 10-foot setbacic. <br /> Gaffron stated the rules 11ave not changed but that the size of the garage dictates the setback requirements. <br /> Palm stated he is fine with leaving the garage wliere ifi currently sits and ineet the 5-foot setbacic with 750 <br /> square feet. <br /> Gaffron stated a 10-foot setbaelc is rec�uired for any new eonsh�uetion. <br /> Palm stated he was granted a variance the last time for a S-foot setbacic. Palm stated the application was <br /> �ranted back in 2002 with the provision that the garage be located five feet fro.m the property line. <br /> Gaffi-on stated Co�uzcil did grant a S-foot variance in 2002 but lhat StaPf is c�uestioning today whether or <br /> not there is still a sufticient hardship to support lhat setback. <br /> Breiiler noled 22' by 34' �vere the approved dime�lsions and the applicant is no�v rec�uesting a 25' by 32' <br /> gara�;e. Bremer stated the Planning Commission tends to allo�v sinaller structures to be located closer to <br /> the property line. <br /> PAGE 15 <br />