Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated the only piece of structure in that rectangle that is not allowed is the deck on the second <br /> story. Thiesse stated if the applicant constructs the deck, the only detriment is the railing since there is <br /> already an enclosed roof. <br /> Curtis stated the deck that is on the house is moved more towards the center. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there is also the potential to enclose that deck off at some point in the future. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission needs to explain why it is a practical difficulty in this <br /> situation. Schoenzeit noted the City sees properties with twice the land area but yet they are allowed less <br /> structural coverage than in this case. <br /> Thiesse noted he is reducing his structural coverage. <br /> Lemke stated he is leaning towards denial of the lake setback variance. <br /> Landgraver stated he comes down on the side of not approving additional structural coverage in the 0-75- <br /> foot zone. Landgraver stated there also is the undefined issue of massing, but that he would recommend <br /> the Planning Commission not approve any additional encroachments. <br /> Lemke stated he feels the same way. <br /> Thiesse stated he would agree that the additional encroachment should not be allowed. Thiesse stated <br /> there are a number of extenuating circumstances but in his view there is no practical diff'iculty for the <br /> extra four feet. Thiesse stated if a practical difficulty could be shown,he could be persuaded to approve <br /> it. <br /> Leskinen stated she cannot find a practical difficulty to approve it. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the design looks nice but there is no justification for the additional encroachment. <br /> McGrann stated he does not disagree with that. <br /> Page 59 of 79 <br />