Laserfiche WebLink
R'IINUTES OF THE . <br /> ORONO PLANNING CONIlIIISSION MEETING <br /> Tneaday,January 19,2016 ^,,,� <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. C <br /> V. <br /> � <br /> �� <br /> ���, <br /> I.eskinen asked if it woald not trigger the maximum allowed on the structure if it is Iess than 1,U04 square ` <br /> e <br /> feet. <br /> Gaffron indicated that is correct since it would na longer be considered an oversize accessory structure. <br /> T'hiesse stated if the applicants remove the 2-foot eaves,they wonld be Under the 1,000 square feet. <br /> Thiesse stated in his opinion the proposed addition is too large and that it is difficult to prove a practical <br /> difficulty. <br /> Schwingler stated on the other hand it does enhance the building. <br /> Leskinen asked if there would still be the impact on the sewer injector system if the building would be <br /> brought down to below 1,000 square feet. <br /> Gaf&on indicated he does not know the answer to that but that there would need to be a 10-foot setback. <br /> Thiesse asked if the building wiil or has been used for a business. <br /> Gaffron stated that is a standard boilerplate covenant that the City uses on every accessory structure that <br /> has a toilet and sink. <br /> Topalof stated the property owners would be open to reducing the size of the addition and that it is not <br /> used as a commercial space and is simply an art center for the property owners. The properiy owners <br /> signed the covenant in 2010 when the structure was remodeled. Because af the age of the structures on <br /> the property and the way the plot for the neighborhood was laid out,none of the structures meet the <br /> required setbacks. Topalof noted this addition would not hurt any of the future developnaents on Grand <br /> Avenue. <br /> Landgraver stated the adjacent neighbor has not raised an objection about it and that the project does have <br /> some positives about it, especially if the applicants are willing to reduce the size. <br /> Page 13 of 45 <br />