Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit asked as part of the appeal process whether there is any way to test whether the code was <br /> misapplied versus whether an after-the-fact variance is more applicable. <br /> Barnhart stated the applicants could apply for an after-the-fact variance. <br /> Thiesse noted that would be a separate process. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the issue is whether the code was applied incorrectly. <br /> Thiesse noted he asked if there is any code or regulation in the City that would allow it and the answer <br /> was no. Thiesse stated every time a different name is given to it, something else comes up prohibiting it. <br /> Schutt stated one of the issues is that no one has been able to apply a name to it since it is merely there for <br /> aesthetics. Schutt stated they are asking for some lenience on the structure given the fact that it is more or <br /> less an aesthetic structure. Schutt noted the wall was needed for drainage purposes and that they added <br /> the structure on top of it as an enhancement. <br /> Thiesse stated no matter what it is called, it is too high and the wall, since it serves as the foundation, is <br /> too close to the property line. <br /> Curtis stated the accessory structure regulations are pretty all-encompassing and allows a number of <br /> different structures but require five feet at the rear and ten feet into the side for the setbacks. Curtis stated <br /> from the standpoint of not calling it a fence but applying the fence standards to it, Staff was attempting to <br /> find a little leeway. <br /> Lemke stated in his view it serves the same purpose as an arbor and that he would call it an arbor. <br /> Leskinen noted even as an arbor, it would be considered an accessory use. Leskinen commented it is too <br /> high and too close to the property line no matter what it is called. <br /> Schutt stated it was included in all the original plans and was there when the property was inspected on <br /> different occasions. Schutt stated the difficulty was to depict it adequately on the plans given its height. <br /> Schutt indicated it was not until the final inspection that it caused concern. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the circumstances would be different if it was a purchased sculpture and placed there <br /> with a forklift. <br /> Curtis stated it becomes a question of whether it is furniture, like a lawn chair or umbrella, or something <br /> that is seasonal. Curtis noted this was constructed onsite and is permanent. <br /> Thiesse stated it comes back to no matter what you call it, it is not allowed. Thiesse stated the role of the <br /> Planning Commission tonight is to verify whether the code was applied correctly, and if the applicants are <br /> not satisfied with the outcome,they could apply for an after-the-fact variance. <br /> Olson asked if the property owners were misguided and they were led to believe it was approved. <br /> Curtis stated to her recollection the original plan did not show a wall but depicted a patio in that location. <br /> Page 14 of 26 <br />