Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Thiesse pointed out there may be some differential movement between the existing structure and the <br /> addition. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. <br /> Regina Lasher, 1360 Railroad Avenue, asked how wide the deck would be on the driveway side. Lasher <br /> noted she lives across the street and that they have some concern about people traffic on the side of the <br /> building with the addition. <br /> Topalof stated the walkway is three feet wide. <br /> Thiesse noted there are 2-foot overhangs as well. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view the practical difficulty of reasonableness is not met and that this would be <br /> expanding an existing nonconformity. In addition,the structure is oversized and is not near the principal <br /> structure. Leskinen stated if this was the only accessory structure on the property, then there might be a <br /> practical difficulty. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the addition is cute but that he would like to know how this would not set a precedent <br /> for other nonconforming structures to expand without a practical difficulty other than the fact that the <br /> structure exists. <br /> Thiesse stated that was his concern as well and that he cannot find a practical difficulty for the expansion. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is adding to something that is already over and does not have anything unique to it. <br /> Leskinen stated it is already well beyond what a normal oversize structure would be. <br /> Landgraver noted this structure was built a number of decades ago before the City had any of these <br /> restrictions. Landgraver stated in his view it enhances the building and is an improvement to something <br /> that is already there. Landgraver noted the neighborhood has some other accessory structures. <br /> Leskinen asked what the current size of the structure is. <br /> Gaffron indicated it is 22' x 32' or roughly 770 square feet. <br /> Lemke stated he has a concern about expanding the building on the driveway side and that the massive <br /> size of the building does not fit with what he would like to see. <br /> Leskinen noted the maximum allowed in that area is 1,000 square feet and that it is not the only accessory <br /> structure on the property, which is why it is difficult to find a practical difficulty. <br /> Thiesse asked whether any variances would be required if the building were increased to 999 square feet. <br /> Page 8 of 30 <br />