Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 20,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to allow the shed but that they <br /> could make a recommendation that it should be considered by the City Council. Since the applicants <br /> purchased the home with the shed it that location, it makes it a difficult situation, but that they have to <br /> deal with the constraints placed on the Planning Commission. <br /> Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission address the deck. <br /> Henning stated they were merely looking for a 14' x 14' deck. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. <br /> Landgraver commented this application has morphed into something different and that in his view the <br /> Planning Commission should approve the deck as proposed and separate the deck from this application. <br /> Landgraver stated there is a variance process that needs to be followed for the shed. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the deck as proposed looks fine, and that if there is the opportunity to make a <br /> recommendation to encourage notice for a public hearing so the applicant can deal with both situations at <br /> the same time so they do not have to come back a separate time, he would be in favor of that. <br /> Lemke indicated he would like to know whether any of the neighbors have any comments regarding the <br /> shed. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would suggest that the public hearing for the shed be held at the City Council <br /> meeting so the applicants can deal with both issues at the same time. <br /> Leskinen noted it is not within the Planning Commission's authority to approve the shed at this time and <br /> that notice to the neighbors must be given. <br /> Thiesse stated the unfortunate part of it is that the neighbors now have a chance to object to it after the <br /> fact even though it has existed in that location for a number of years. Thiesse asked if the applicants also <br /> have a driveway expansion that should be added to the application. <br /> Curtis noted they were issued a permit for the driveway but the hardcover did not match the survey. <br /> Thiesse moved to recommend approval of Application 313-3605,Brian and Rebecca Henning,245 <br /> Tonka Avenue,granting of a 30-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of the 14' x 14' deck <br /> and the stairs,and to recommend that the shed be allowed to remain as is. <br /> Landgraver stated he is looking at the application only in the sense of the deck and that it is difficult to <br /> make a recommendation to approve a variance on an illegal structure even though the applicants <br /> purchased the property with the shed in that location <br /> Page 7 of 25 <br />