Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 15,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3140 Andrew and Kristen Ronningen,Continued) <br /> properties' views to the lake due to the curvature of the shoreline in the cove. Staff recommends that the <br /> Planning Commission discuss whether variances should be granted to permit covered entries. Gundlach <br /> stated in the past hardships have been based on the location of the existing house on the lot and not <br /> always inherent with the land. <br /> Ronningen stated they are attempting to design the addition to fit in with the neighborhood. Ronningen <br /> stated they currently are experiencing an ice buildup on the front steps, which would be improved by the <br /> overhang. Ronningen stated they would also like to add one light to improve the safety of the entryway. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Rahn inquired if Maple Avenue were considered a side setback, what the encroachment would be. <br /> Gundlach stated a side yard adjacent to a street in the half-acre zone requires a 15-foot setback. <br /> Rahn noted the address is Casco Point and inquired whether this application could be reviewed with a <br /> different rear yard. <br /> Gundlach indicated Staff reviewed this application in this manner because there is an approved variance <br /> from 1968 where it was called the rear yard. Gundlach stated technically a rear yard is the yard opposite <br /> to the front,which in this case would be the lake. <br /> Rahn stated in his view Casco Point would be a side street yard. <br /> Gaffron stated the City needs to be consistent and if the City in 1968 determined that it was a rear yard,it <br /> should probably remain a rear yard. <br /> Jurgens commented some day in the future Maple Avenue might be improved and is technically a <br /> right-of-way. Jurgens inquired whether the 20 feet is measured from where the stoop currently is. <br /> Gundlach stated the existing 20 feet is from the wall of the home. <br /> Rahn stated there would be an additional five feet of encroachment with the stoop. <br /> Jurgens stated in theory there actually is house located under the front stoop given the fact that there is a <br /> well pit in that area. Jurgens stated he does not have an issue with the application. <br /> Leslie stated as long as the City's building code does not mandate a covered walk,he does not see a <br /> hardship for a covered entrance and a further encroachment into the setback. Leslie stated the hardship is <br /> inherent with the building and not the land and that he does not support this portion of the application. <br /> PAGE 12 <br />