Laserfiche WebLink
, NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> b:30 o'clock p.m. , ,� <br /> 'The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: �. <br /> �,�� <br /> "�`, <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission fmd that the property own.er proposes to use the property in a � <br /> reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control7 <br /> 2. Does the Planning Commission fmd that the variances, if gra.nted,will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 3. Tf the Planning Commission concludes tt�at the variauces as requested or in some other manner or <br /> configuration are justified,does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in arder <br /> to mitigate the impacts created by the granting af the variances? <br /> Gaffron displayed a sketch af the proposal. <br /> Landgraver asked if this addition would impact the gravel driveway. <br /> Gaffron illustrated the location of the gravel driveway and the driveway to the house on the overhead. <br /> Gaffron stated t�e addition is to tfie back of the building and not to the frorn. Based on the survey,there <br /> appears to be�or four feet from the porch to the gravel driveway. <br /> Lemke asked what the height of the proposed building is. <br /> Gaf&on stated the building will meet City height requirements and that the applicat�.t could advise the <br /> Planning Commission on whether the height of the building will be raised. <br /> Thiesse noted the practical difficuhies statement is blank. <br /> Gaffron noted the applicants did answer the required 12 questions but did not add anything else. <br /> Rick Topalof,Int,�grity Remodeling, stated they are not raising the roof on the existing structure. Topalof <br /> stated the plan is to ti:e in below the peak of the eausting roof and bring it down across the deck. <br /> Page 10 of 45 <br />