Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 18,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> property beforehand, it was a spot that was washing out into what would now be considered a little grassy <br /> area. It is kind of swampy and holds some water. They will be moved if necessary. <br /> Kirchner stated it looks like to the east and west of those buildings there are markings of the survey that <br /> say "PP," which he is assuming are power poles,and the line between them are the overhead power lines <br /> that Wright-Hennepin would have clear-cut for. <br /> Mr. Brady said he was correct.They also maintain that to keep an accessible route for Wright-Hennepin, <br /> so they can get in and out of there if needed. It is a transformer pole. <br /> Ressler asked Mr. Brady to be available for any questions, which Mr. Brady agreed to do. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments relating to this application. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. <br /> Libby stated he was trying to log on to a second screen to view the full application but had reviewed the <br /> application earlier. He does not have any objections to the application. He is unable to reference what <br /> Staff determined on this, but he does not see any problems with the proposal. <br /> Ressler said the packet indicated Staff was in support;they identified enough practical difficulty. He read <br /> the language, "Staff finds that there are some practical difficulties due to the location of the septic, <br /> location of the existing home and substandard lot area for the district." He stated that the setbacks <br /> required for front and rear are 50 feet and the subject property are 42 and 168 feet,respectively. He noted <br /> 42 is almost 50 but not quite. The required north and south side setbacks are 30 and the existing is 136 <br /> and 16.8, which is part of the variance application. <br /> Erickson said he reviewed the Staff report and is in agreement with voting in favor of the approval of the <br /> request. <br /> McCutcheon said he would tend to agree,noting the garage is in line with the house,the driveway is right <br /> there, and it makes the most sense to put it in that location. He is in favor of approval. <br /> Bollis stated he agrees with Staff and it seems to be the most practical place to put the garage given the <br /> constraints of the property. He would like to see the other two sheds brought into conformity somehow. <br /> Ressler commented that this should be noted for the City Council. <br /> Gettman and Kirchner stated they agreed with the points brought forward and would support the <br /> application. <br /> Ressler said he also agrees with Staff's recommendation, a reasonable practical difficulty has been <br /> identified, and he would support the application as provided. <br /> Page 2 of 29 <br />