Laserfiche WebLink
- MINUTES OF TAE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> ` 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3097 Hasliem Abukhadra, Continued) <br /> Leslie stated the guesthouse woulc� be closer to the fi•ont property line than the mlin residence,which <br /> would require another varia��ce. <br /> Gundlach stated she is Lmsure 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 Cornmission needs to determine <br /> wl�ether 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 discussiou at tl�e last meeting about making Lot 6 a back lot. <br /> Gundlach stated if tliat were not called a back lot,there would be some access and visibility issues witl� <br /> Foa Street. <br /> � Ralm stated the guesthouse could a(so 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 renlain undeveloped for the ne�t few years. <br /> Gundlach stated Staff feels tlle existing driveway-would be an unnecessary access onto Fox and tliat they <br /> could utilize the new roadway. <br /> Leslie stated if this land is developed,that access should be removed. <br /> Rahn inquired whetl�er the Planning Comnlission 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 �Uack-lot. <br /> Gundlach stated ifthe eaisting house were reconstructeci in tl�e same eaact position,the setbacks would <br /> not be affected. <br /> Abukhadra stated they only have a concern with Itein 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 />