My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:27 PM
Creation date
8/25/2016 9:13:01 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
356
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
, A�NUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNII�TG CO1VI14IISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 ��'� <br /> b:30 o'clock p.m. ,�,_ � <br /> \'/ <br /> '��structure. Leskinen stated if this was the onIy acc�ssory structure on the properiy,then there migbt be a d�^'"� <br /> practical difficulty. � � <br /> Schoenzeit stated the addition is cute but that he would like to laiow how this would not set a precedent <br /> for other nonconfortning stzuctures to eacpa�ad without a practical dif�culty other than the fact that the <br /> structure exists. <br /> Thiesse stated that was his concern as well and that he cannot find a pra.ctical difficulty for ti�e e�cpansion. <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 /> restricfions. L,azidgraver stated in his view it enfzances 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 774 square feet. <br /> Lemke stated he has a concern about expanding tt�e 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 tho maximum allowed in thaY area is 1,000 square feet and ti�at it is not the only accessory <br /> structuze on the property,which is why it is difficutt to fizid a practical difficulty. <br /> 7luesse asked whether any variances would be required if the building were increased to 999 square fect. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would be looking at a 15-foot side setback as well as the oti�er varia�nces in terms <br /> of its location. Gaf&on staied they would be required to have a I S-foot setback from the side lot lines <br /> rather than a 30-foot setback for an oversize accessory structure. <br /> Page 12 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.