Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 7 of 31  <br />  <br />Gaffron indicated he would prefer to not have a separate application for the shed. <br /> <br />Thiesse commented expanding the garage by two feet would make it a more standard garage and would <br />be about equal to the square footage of the shed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit noted only approximately 25 percent of the shed is located on the property currently. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the rest of the shed is not counted towards the hardcover number. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated he would like to see a new application with regard to the shed, which would encourage <br />the applicant to perhaps think about moving the square feet of the shed to the garage. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated the motion could include either moving the shed to a conforming location or adding the <br />square footage of the shed to the proposed garage and eliminating the shed. <br /> <br />Ciliberto stated currently the shed is located on the railroad property and that they would not be opposed <br />to adding that hardcover on to the proposed garage rather than submit a separate application for the shed. <br />Ciliberto indicated they were attempting to relocate the shed off of the Railroad Authority’s property. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted they are allowed 1,500 square feet of structural coverage. Gaffron indicated they could add <br />another 45 square feet and still be below the 1,500 square feet, which is the standard for this size lot. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated the extra square feet will not make the house out of character with the neighborhood. <br />Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to reduce hardcover and elimination of the shed is a more <br />practical way to accomplish that. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if there is a particular side of the garage that should be expanded given the setbacks. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if two feet is added at the north end of the garage, the structure will be approximately eight <br />and a half feet from the lot line. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated the applicants could be given the option of locating the shed in a conforming location or <br />adding the square feet to the garage. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked if the Planning Commission would need to see the application again. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if it requires a setback variance, the Planning Commission should address that tonight or <br />the application should come back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated it will not meet the 10- <br />foot setback on the east side but the garage will be conforming for the most part. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the only conforming location for the shed would be within the swale. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated it is. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated in his view the increase in garage space should be allowed and that the Planning <br />Commission should recognize that the applicant may need to come back with a request for a variance if <br />they decide to relocate the shed. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014 <br />Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014 <br />[Page 7 of 31]