Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONU PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 15-3792,John and Ben Kieffer,2Q24 <br /> Shadywood Road. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 5. #15�-3 4 TIM AND MARY DUUBEK,4565 SHADYWOOD ROAD ARIANCES,7:37 <br /> P.M.—7:46 P. <br /> Tim and Mary Dou ,Applicants,were present. <br /> Curtis stated the applic are the new owners of the property and are in e process of const�ucting the <br /> residence. This home is si ted toward the rear of the"L"shaped pro to take advantage of the lake <br /> view to the south. The appli ts propose construction of a new 2,400 quare foot pole building in a <br /> clearing of the streets streetw of the house. The pole shed will be creened from the road by existing <br /> vegetation as well as vegetation the adjacent properties. <br /> C�.rtis noted a 2,400 square foot acc sory structure is defined a an oversized a.ccessory structure and <br /> 2,600 square feet is the maximum indi 'dual footprint for the plicant's pmperty size,which is seven <br /> acres. The applicant is not proposing th aximum size buii g. A setback variance is required in order <br /> to construct ti�e pole barn between the prin ' al structure the front,street lot line. <br /> Sta.ffhas done an analysis of the practical di� lty and ould be able to answer any questions relating to <br /> that. Staff fmds due to the lot size and shape,th �ci ' g mature trees,septic treatment locations, <br /> topography, and the location of the home toward ar of the properiy,there is practical difficulty to <br /> support allowing the new pole building to be con ted in the proposed location. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the se ck vari c�to allow a new pole building to be <br /> constructed in the proposad location. The ap cants shou be required to record an oversize accessory <br /> structure covenant against the property. No ture subdivisi would be approved that places the pole <br /> shed on a lot without a principal structure. <br /> T'he Planning Commission hsd no ques ons for Staff. <br /> David Bieker, Contractor, stated wh someone stands in the propos ocation,given the tree cover, <br /> even in the wintertime, it screens properiy and the pole shed will not visible from the road. The <br /> front part of the property towards e road is actually an apple orchard an ere are also existing pine <br /> trees,which further screens it. <br /> Curtis displayed an aerial of e property. <br /> Bieker stated if the Pl ' g Commission looks at the topogra.phy on the survey,the ill see that this is <br /> really the only spat to 1 the pale barn. The owners will not have horses on the pro rty but the pole <br /> shed is to store the tr ' er so it is not sitting outside. Bieker noted there are also several o er properties <br /> along the road that ve the same situation since�e homes were built towards the back of e lot and is <br /> common for the ar , especially on the south side of the road. Tbe properiy owners are reca cting in <br /> the same spot as e existix�g house. <br /> Thiesse aske if there is a reason why the pole shed could not be located east of the house. <br /> Page 13 of 27 <br />