Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 22,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3078 Gary and Lynn Christensen,Continued) <br /> driveway that encroach across the property line. In addition, a shed, a playhouse and a play structure <br /> exist entirely on the adjoining property that would need to be removed. <br /> Staff is also recommending removal of extra sidewalk, a 10' x 16' concrete pad, and any other <br /> non-essential hardcover. Curtis noted this property currently exceeds the hardcover limits. In addition, <br /> should the Planning Commission determine the Y2 store to be additional living space versus attic space, <br /> Staff would suggest that the dormers on the northern side of the roof be eliminated. <br /> The applicant had no comments in addition to Staff's report. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Danbury inquired why the dormers on the north side of the house are an issue when the dormers on the <br /> other side of the residence are not. <br /> Curtis pointed out the dormers would not meet the 10 foot setback since the roof currently encroaches <br /> into the side setback. <br /> Danbury inquired whether a variance has been granted in other locations. <br /> Curtis stated often the second story would be required to meet the 10-foot side setback if there is an <br /> encroachment. <br /> Gaffron stated it probably is a situation where a variance has been both approved and denied. Gaffron <br /> suggested pulling the dormers back in a foot and a half to eliminate the encroachment. <br /> Fritzler commented the Planning Commission needs to deal with the issues that are before it tonight and <br /> that when there already is an encroachment,the Planning Commission would like it reduced whenever <br /> possible. <br /> Danbury stated the dormers are located on the left side and that they have been informed that adjacent <br /> lot is unbuildable. Danbury indicated there is a couple hundred feet to the left of this addition. <br /> Fritzler indicated they are unable to tell what the future may hold for the adjacent lot and that it is <br /> possible that some day in the future there may be a house built on that lot. <br /> Christensen stated relocating the shed is an option. <br /> Rahn inquired how long the applicant has owned the property. <br /> Christensen indicated he has owned the property for approximately ten years and that the deck and <br /> driveway existed at the time of purchase. <br /> PAGE 6 <br />