Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17,1997 <br />(#5 - #2311 Loren Fritz - Continued) <br />Lindquist recommended the applicant come to an agreement with the neighboring <br />property owner regarding the wood retaining wall. Fritz said the wall is a replacement of <br />what already existed to prevent erosion, and his neighbor supported the building of the <br />wall. <br />Fritz said the shed has been there for 30 years and is in good repair. It is used for lawn <br />equipment. Fritz said he would object to removing the shed as it does not create any <br />problem for the neighbors and is overshadowed by the bam to the west. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Lindquist said he supported the proposed addition and maintaining the wood retaining <br />wall. However, he recommended the shed be moved. <br />Fritz said the relocation of the shed would create an eyesore if relocated. Fritz also <br />indicated that he would have to dismantle the shed as it is bolted down. Mrs. Fritz said <br />the area suggested for the shed location is marshland and unbuildable. <br />McMillan asked if the shed would require rebuilding when it became deteriorated, if it <br />could be built in the same location. Dressier said it would require a variance. Dressier <br />said the shed is in good condition at this timt; <br />Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve the rear setback variance of 13.9' to <br />allow the proposed addition to be located 16.1' from the rear lot line where 7' is existing <br />and 30' is allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />(#6> #2313 TOM AND KARISTEINKE, 910 DAKOTA AVENUE - VARIANCE - <br />7:45-7:49 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />The Applicant was present. <br />Dressier presented photographs of the property. The proposal is for construction of a <br />second story addition over the existing residence. The existing residence currently <br />encroaches the side setback. The variance would allow additional structuie in the <br />required setback but would not encroach further. <br />Dressier reviewed the four issues as indicated in the packet. Staff recommended approval <br />of the application. <br />Mr. Steinke had no further comments. <br />J