11-20-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OI THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1995 (^5 - H20SS Winfield Stephens - Continued) Both the current owner, Steve Gardiner, and the new owner, Winfield Stephens, were present Stephens said the vacation \ as suggested to minimize impact of variances with the proposed improvements The vacation had also been recommended by StalT He said the area where the alley is located seems to be part of the lawn, and the entire detached garage is located within the alley Peterson asked if the issue of the vacation was frivolous on the part of the neighbors or not Mabuslh said she had just been made a % ire of their interests Peterson asked the applicant if he was aware that he would need to combine lots 1-4. Stephens said that was not an issue Lindquist asked the applicant if he did not gain the vacation of the alley, if he still wished to proceed, and Stephens advised he did w ish to proceed regardless of the outcome of the alley Peterson said the applicant could not proceed without the 30’ alley as both development plans show garage remaining in alley Option //2, Mabuslh said entailed an issue of impact to the neighbor if the addition w as to the east The Wicklands report an impact on their view s There is no legal claim to the view but option also involves new construction at 3 5' from north side lot line Setbacks and hardcover variance are less intense with the inclusion of the additional area from the vacated alley Peterson asked the applicant what he would prefer Stephens said he preferred option in order to save 2 big oak trees in front yard. Option ti 1 does require the removal of 2 large maples The old owner said the oak trees were beautiful He noted that one of the trees was 7' in circumference and would be a shame to lose it I lawn asked if the addition couldn’t be altered and sit where the diseased maple is located but skirt the oak and save the other maple Stephens said it could but would be within the 50' street setback from County Road, which he thought was more critical. Mabusth said it would be dilTicult to approve an encroached of the 50’ setback. She noted that w e are dealing with limited building envelope Lindquist said he had a problem with 3-1/2’ on the north lot line and then doubling the amount I ne old owner. Steve Gardiner, remarked that this was the way it had always been. Lindquist said although this was true, he could not imagine doubling the area. The applicant and ow ner said they had a notarized copy of the easement that provided access along the north lot line