Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 16,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if he could put the garage on the other side. <br /> Knutson stated the problem with shifting it is that they ran into restricted space with one entry. <br /> Lemke asked if they could rotate the entire thing. <br /> Knutson stated they tried but that they wanted a walkway to the house. Given the size of the garage door, <br /> it turned out to be an odd configuration. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if they could put the garage on the other side. <br /> Knutson noted there are pine trees and a pond with some other large trees on that side. In addition,the <br /> other side has the septic and the back yard drops off fast. Knutson stated it is a unique orientation where <br /> the elevations drop off of the plateau,which is the high point of the area. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what the encroachment is on the current garage. <br /> Thiesse noted the garage is at 36.5 feet and the shed is at the spot where the proposed structure would go. <br /> Knutson stated he would like the neighbors to keep their privacy as well as their own and that they would <br /> be willing to add to the natural barrier. Knutson noted they will not touch any of the existing vegetative <br /> barrier. <br /> Steve Pierce stated he appreciates the suggestion of a landscape plan but that he would note the Planning <br /> Commission saw some other locations for the shed that could be explored. Pierce stated his <br /> understanding was that the corner of the shed was going to be the very corner of the new structure and <br /> that he was surprised when he looked at the plan that it is definitely not the back corner of the new <br /> structure and instead goes quite a bit beyond the existing shed. Pierce stated he can see the corner of the <br /> shed now and that it will go another 30 feet or so closer to the property and that they will be able to easily <br /> see the structure. <br /> Thiesse commented he sees areas where the garage could be reconfigured. <br /> Schoenzeit stated with this amount of property,there is no reason why it could not be relocated. <br /> Thiesse noted there are reasons why it cannot be relocated to some areas. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. <br /> Landgraver stated the issue he comes back to is if it was a replacement in kind,there would not be <br /> anything they could do about it. Landgraver commented the property owner has some rights but he could <br /> build a different structure that does not require as much of a variance. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if any of them were the neighbor,they would be hoping that the City Council or <br /> Planning Commission would be enforcing the code. Schoenzeit noted the applicant would require a <br /> variance for the extra height even if he built within an existing footprint. <br /> Thiesse noted the applicant's view is mainly down the hill to the northwest and that if the structure is <br /> rotated, it would be even more visible from the neighbor's property. <br /> Page 23 of 32 <br />