Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 20,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Section 4 removes most of what is required for a site plan application,deferring this to forms provided by <br /> the City. This allows for more flexibility to change the form or to waive requirements when appropriate <br /> based on the project. <br /> Section 5 requires a building permit and that the property corners must be located. This deviates from the <br /> current ordinance which requires pins to be located. If pins are not located,the property must be <br /> resurveyed. <br /> Section 6 continues to require a location for a 20 x 24 foot garage shown on a plan. The change is the <br /> type of the plan based on if the garage is to be connected to the principal structure or not. <br /> Barnhart noted Section 78-144 on Page 3 of the ordinance relates to an application for site plan review. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is a need to be more specific on the specific forms being used by the City. <br /> Barnhart stated he does not believe so and that the use of the term forms allows Staff more flexibility to <br /> change the forms. Barnhart stated the required information could change based on the project. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if someone was putting a shed on the 10-foot setback,without a survey or markers from <br /> a surveyor,they would be guessing where that setback is. Schoenzeit asked what the recourse would be if <br /> the shed is in the wrong spot. Schoenzeit stated he has some concerns that the placement will not be <br /> correct and that it could encroach into the setback if the distance is not properly determined. Schoenzeit <br /> stated perhaps they should require that it be placed at120 percent of the setback. <br /> Barnhart stated if Staff is reviewing a site plan for a shed and the applicant indicates they will retain a 10- <br /> foot setback, it would be permitted by the City. The property line would need to be identified by the <br /> applicant or his builder. Barnhart stated in that situation,they might lose a little bit of accuracy,but the <br /> City approved it at 10-feet and not at any other distance. Barnhart stated if evidence is submitted that <br /> shows the shed is in an incorrect position,the person must move it. Barnhart stated in his view that will <br /> only happen in a few cases, but the Planning Commission and City Council will need to decide whether <br /> that is acceptable. <br /> Schoenzeit stated with a$500 shed from Menards or Home Depot,you should not necessarily need a <br /> $3,000 survey, but that someone should not be able to put it right on the 10-foot line since they are <br /> guessing and that perhaps the City should require it be located at 12 feet. <br /> Barnhart stated there could be some sort of sliding scale of how close it is to a setback line but he chose <br /> not to go that route since it adds more layers of regulation. Barnhart stated he is not confident there is a <br /> lot of benefit to that but he is open to comments from the Planning Commission and City Council. <br /> Landgraver stated the issues likely will occur on the smaller lots where people are attempting to maximize <br /> their space and there will be selective interpretation of where the property line. Landgraver stated if the <br /> City receives a number of complaints,that will alert the City of that issue and it can be modified, but that <br /> he is willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt. <br /> Barnhart pointed out the City Administrator may require a survey to verify property lines for those types <br /> of situations,especially if the project is bigger in scope. <br /> Page 33 of 43 <br />