Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 20, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 7 of 25  <br />  <br />Leskinen stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to allow the shed but that they <br />could make a recommendation that it should be considered by the City Council. Since the applicants <br />purchased the home with the shed it that location, it makes it a difficult situation, but that they have to <br />deal with the constraints placed on the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission address the deck. <br /> <br />Henning stated they were merely looking for a 14’ x 14’ deck. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. <br /> <br />Landgraver commented this application has morphed into something different and that in his view the <br />Planning Commission should approve the deck as proposed and separate the deck from this application. <br />Landgraver stated there is a variance process that needs to be followed for the shed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated the deck as proposed looks fine, and that if there is the opportunity to make a <br />recommendation to encourage notice for a public hearing so the applicant can deal with both situations at <br />the same time so they do not have to come back a separate time, he would be in favor of that. <br /> <br />Lemke indicated he would like to know whether any of the neighbors have any comments regarding the <br />shed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated he would suggest that the public hearing for the shed be held at the City Council <br />meeting so the applicants can deal with both issues at the same time. <br /> <br />Leskinen noted it is not within the Planning Commission’s authority to approve the shed at this time and <br />that notice to the neighbors must be given. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated the unfortunate part of it is that the neighbors now have a chance to object to it after the <br />fact even though it has existed in that location for a number of years. Thiesse asked if the applicants also <br />have a driveway expansion that should be added to the application. <br /> <br />Curtis noted they were issued a permit for the driveway but the hardcover did not match the survey. <br /> <br />Thiesse moved to recommend approval of Application 313-3605, Brian and Rebecca Henning, 245 <br />Tonka Avenue, granting of a 30-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of the 14’ x 14’ deck <br />and the stairs, and to recommend that the shed be allowed to remain as is. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he is looking at the application only in the sense of the deck and that it is difficult to <br />make a recommendation to approve a variance on an illegal structure even though the applicants <br />purchased the property with the shed in that location <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013 <br />[Page 7 of 25]