Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra,Continued) <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 /> Gaffron stated to his recollection the code does not specifically address 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 is another way to configure the driveway without making an outlot. <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 some access and visibility issues with <br /> Fox Street. <br /> Rahn stated 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 5. <br /> Gronberg stated the lot line could be reconfigured. <br /> Bremer and Leslie concurred the lot line should be changed. <br /> Abukhadra stated Lot 1 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 unnecessary access onto Fox and that they <br /> could utilize the new roadway. <br /> Leslie stated if this land is developed,that access 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-1B 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 <br />