Laserfiche WebLink
• MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schutt stated it has been a part of the plan from the beginning and it was not until the final inspection that <br /> it became an issue. <br /> Curtis stated City inspectors are normally called out to look at a specific feature, such as plumbing or <br /> framing. The inspectors are onsite for a limited amount of time and are there to look at a specific thing. <br /> Curtis noted this is a small feature, did not cause a drainage problem, and the neighbors have not <br /> complained about it. At the time of the final as-built inspection,the inspector walks the site,he takes <br /> photographs, and then meets with Staff to ensure that the project complies with the plans. Curtis stated <br /> Staff realizes there will be changes to landscape plans because they are somewhat,which is why that was <br /> not called out by any of the inspectors. <br /> Thiesse noted the role of the Planning Commission is only to discuss whether the code was applied <br /> correctly and that it appears the code was applied correctly. <br /> Landgraver stated as a service to the community,he would not want to say that all the applicants need to <br /> do is apply for an after-the-fact variance since that may not be approved. Landgraver stated he <br /> remembers discussing the patio since it was close to the edge of the property but that he does not <br /> remember discussing anything vertical in that area. Landgraver stated had there been something like this <br /> discussed,he probably would have had a concern about it. <br /> Landgraver indicated he tends to agree that Staff has attempted to find a way to say yes but that the height <br /> is the issue. Landgraver stated he is inclined to think the criteria used by Staff was correct and that he <br /> would tend to deny the appeal. Landgraver stated he also is concerned whether it will get a variance if it <br /> is at six feet. <br /> Curtis stated at that point Staff would probably apply the fence standards again. <br /> Schutt indicated it is 7.5 feet high and lines up exactly with the roofline on the house. Schutt stated <br /> bringing it down to six feet would result in it being directly in the line of sight from the house. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if this arbor was included in any of the elevations that were submitted to the City. <br /> Schutt stated he does not feel comfortable answering that question at this time. <br /> Curtis stated Staff could look at that. Curtis indicated she does not remember that being included and that <br /> typically landscape elements are not included in the building plans except for perhaps an egress window <br /> or a change in grade or where a retaining wall is necessary. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if it were included in the approved elevations at 7.5 feet, that would change the <br /> discussion. <br /> Curtis stated if it was not something that was called out in Staff's plan review or permitted, she is not sure <br /> that it would be approved by default. Curtis stated she is relatively confident it was not included in the <br /> building plan and that it is more of a landscaping element. Curtis stated the house is also right at the <br /> limitation for structural coverage and that this would have been an issue given its height. <br /> Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,Application No. 16-3884,Jeff and Pia Schutt,2750 Casco <br /> Point Road,to recommend denial of the appeal. <br /> Page 15 of 26 <br />