11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Ocfober IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (N04-3054 Joa aad Gall Blackstoac, Continued) and the pool eliminates access from the back of the lot to the front of the lot Blackstonc suted they have positioned the new residence further back on the lot to avoid removing fill and disturbing existing trees and to improve the ability of the builder to make revisions to mlnlml^e runoff. Blackstone stated because of the width of the lot and the position of the house and pool, the access from the back of the lot to the front of the lo* nas been eliminated, which in his view constitutes a hardship. Tim Lembke. 4445 Forest Lake I anding. staled be docs not have a problem with the variances but he would like the runoff in this area addressed. Lembke requested the Planning Commission address the issues w ith runoff in this neighborhood, noting at times he has a nver running through his yard and that he has suffered property damage as a result. Lembke commented in his opinion there w ill be some issues with erosion during construction that also need to be addressed. Maggie Enkson. 4455 Forest Lake Landing, staled every year they experience sani and silt and mud runoff in their dnveway and that the hardcover being proposed on the lot at 4475 will only increase that runoff. Enkson noted their property also siu lower than this lot, and w ith the proposed house being located further back on the property, that would mean any runofTihat is not managed from that house would head to her house. Enkson indicated it is her understanding the applicants do have plans to deal with that. Blackstone staled he is unsure whether it is possible to relocate a shed that 5iae and again noted that it w ould not be acces.vible if the .structure were located behind the new residence. Fntzler noted the survey depicts the shed being located 8 feel from the propeny line in one comer and 8 6 feet in the other. Friuler stated since the ordinance docs not allow accessory structures to he located closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house, he would not be in favor of the variance and would follow Stall's recommendation for approval of ibe lot width vanance Fni/lcr recommended the shed oe relocated. Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendations. Uretner encouraged the applicant to see if the shed could be relocated. Jurgens staled he also is in agreement w iih Staffs recommendations. Jurgens inquired whether setback variances would also be required if the shed w ere allowed to remain in its present location. Gundlach indicated setback variances would be required. Jurgens staled in his view the shed could be moved Rahn noted this lot u long and narrow and slopes sideways somewhat. Rahn noted the residence is bemg proposed for the flattesl most portion of the lot. which is w ay to the rear of the proper^ Rahn inquired whether there is a conforming locabon for the shed behind the proposed residence. PAGE IS