Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked if this has been noticed for a public hearing. <br /> Gaffron stated it was noticed the first time for a public hearing and that Staff typically does not notice an <br /> application a second time unless major changes are being proposed. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. <br /> Thiesse commented the applicants have done a good job revising their plans. <br /> Leskinen stated she likes the revisions the applicant made, especially relating to the size, and that she is <br /> okay with the proposal as presented. Leskinen stated she would like to understand a little more about the <br /> practical difficulty and that she is not 100 percent sure the applicant meets the criteria. Leskinen noted at <br /> the last meeting the primary discussion centered on the fact that this would be a nice improvement to the <br /> area. <br /> Thiesse asked if she would consider the need for a covered entry to the building a practical difficulty. <br /> Leskinen stated she might but noted that this is an accessory structure and not a principal structure. <br /> Schoenzeit stated part of the practical difficulty is the fact that it is an existing structure and cannot be <br /> relocated. Schoenzeit stated they are merely bringing it up to the maximum size allowed for an accessory <br /> structure independent of its location. Schoenzeit stated the applicant took the direction of the Planning <br /> Commission and made some revisions to address the setback and septic issue. <br /> Thiesse stated they are upgrading an existing structure and staying within the confines of the requirements <br /> as much as possible. <br /> Lemke stated the problem he had last time was the extension to the side and reducing the access point <br /> near the driveway. <br /> Leskinen stated her only question is if the building can have the same functional use without the addition <br /> but that this is a practical addition to the structure. Leskinen noted if the building was located somewhere <br /> else on the property or if it was not a through lot, it would be a nonissue. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the location of the road toward the back on the overhead. Gaffron stated since this is <br /> a through lot, it becomes questionable where they could locate the structure and still meet the required <br /> setbacks, but that it does appear they could find such a location. <br /> Thiesse commented it is a covered porch and deck, which seems reasonable. <br /> Landgraver noted the structure has a bathroom in it and is used as a studio and that it would be nice to be <br /> able to step outside onto a covered porch. Landgraver stated the addition is away from the street and not <br /> Page 2 of 30 <br />