Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 20,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff does not have sheaths of information to back up the number,but that is where it has been set, and <br /> the application has to be judged based on the uniqueness of the lot. <br /> Gettman asked if there is some practical difficulty in not conforming with the 1,200 square foot limit. <br /> Gettman indicated he is not in favor of a variance. <br /> Thiesse stated part of the ordinance is to control massing, but in controlling massing,the City will let him <br /> build a larger structure than what he is requesting, which is really not controlling massing. Thiesse stated <br /> in his view a new building would be wider and have a peaked roof on it,which creates more massing than <br /> what the applicant is proposing. Thiesse stated in his mind they are meeting the intent of the code since it <br /> is to reduce massing. <br /> Ressler commented an argument could be made that a 5-foot setback variance would probably be easier to <br /> get a variance for than this. <br /> Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could look at an oversized structure in lieu of an accessory <br /> structure. <br /> Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can encourage the application of a condition foregoing a second <br /> structure. <br /> Ressler stated perhaps they could change the language and say that this is the accessory structure and that <br /> they are just allowing him to attach the second structure. Ressler indicated he is in support of the <br /> application on the condition that some sort of contingency be attached allowing no other structure later. <br /> Oakden stated if the City Attorney determines that condition is not deemed feasible, Staff would like <br /> some other direction from the Planning Commission. <br /> Ressler stated without that contingency in place,he personally would not be in favor of it since it is not <br /> allowed by the ordinance. If the stipulation is not in place,he would recommend denial. <br /> Thiesse noted this has to do with the fact that the property owner is allowed an additional 999 square feet, <br /> and if this is approved,the applicant would only be allowed 300 and some feet of another structure. <br /> McCutcheon stated under common sense, if the goal is to reduce massing,the ordinance should be looked <br /> at again to see why someone cannot have one large building versus two. <br /> Ressler asked whether he would still be in support of the structure if a condition preventing a second <br /> structure were not allowed. <br /> McCutcheon indicated he would be in favor of it either way. <br /> Ressler stated if they want to change the ordinance,that is something that could be considered in the <br /> future, but that the Planning Commission has to go off the rules as they exist today. <br /> Libby stated in his view the idea of trying to limit the applicant from building more structure later by <br /> placing a contingency on the approval is not within the scope of the Planning Commission's decision to <br /> make. Libby indicated he would not be in favor of recommending a contingency that would deprive this <br /> Page 10 of 16 <br />