Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 18,2005 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />i ; <br />1 <br />i,. <br />1/ <br />(805*3097 Hasbcm AbnlduKirB, Contioned) <br />Leslie stated the guesthouse would be closer to the front property line than the main residence, which <br />would require another variance. <br />Gundlach stated she is unsure whether guesthouses are treated the same as accessory structures. <br />Gafiron stated to his recollection the code does not specifically adoress whether a guesthouse should have <br />specific setbacks relating to an accessory building and that the Planning Commission needs to determine <br />whether that would be considered a back lot <br />Kempf inquired whether there i* another way to configure the driveway without making an outiot. <br />Gronberg stated there was no discussion at the last meeting about making Lot 6 a back lot. <br />Gundlach stated if that were not called a back lot, there would be sc. :e access and visibility issues with <br />Fox Street <br />Rahn staled the guesthouse could also be dealt with at the time the lot is redeveloped. <br />Bremer inquired whether a decision was reached on the ditch wetlands noted on Lot S. <br />Gronberg stated the lot line could be reconfigured. <br />Bremer and Leslie concurred the lot line should be changed. <br />Abukhadra stated Lot I could be accessed through the existing driveway. Abukhadra reiterated that the <br />property would remain undeveloped for the next few years. <br />Gundlach stated Staff feels the existing driveway-would be an unnecessaiy access onto Fox and that they <br />could utilize the new roadway. <br />Leslie stated if this land is developed, that acc^ should be removed. <br />Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission feels Lot 6 should be considered a back-lot requiring <br />150% of the RR-IB setback standards. <br />Jurgens stated it should be considered a back-lot. <br />Gundlach stated if the existing house were reconstructed in the same exact position, the setbacks would <br />not be affected. <br />Abukhadra stated they only have a concern with Item 6 if it affects future development of the lot. <br />Rahn inquired how the Planning Commission feels about the height of the proposed retaining walls. <br />PAGE 14