Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit commented it is a tough situation since the monuments clearly do not match the requirements <br /> of the code. Schoenzeit noted the City had someone who wanted to put a gate on a county road when <br /> there was some room behind the gate. Schoenzeit stated that is not the situation here since they do not <br /> have a gate that is blocking the driveway. Schoenzeit stated the monuments are already built and the <br /> owner has incurred some expense,which appears to be a practical difficulty. <br /> Barnhart stated he would be challenged using the fact that the monuments are there as a practical <br /> difficulty since financial concerns cannot be used as a reason to support a variance. <br /> Landgraver stated the Planning Commission also reviewed an application where there was a garden shed <br /> in the front yard and the property owners were required to remove it. Landgraver stated he has a tendency <br /> to side with the City since the approval process was not followed. Landgraver stated while the developer <br /> may not have known it was an issue and did not call it out on the plan,he would have to jump to the <br /> City's defense and say that they should not be expected to look for things outside of the pool. <br /> Schoenzeit stated even if something is on a plan and is not called out by Staff,the developer is still <br /> responsible for complying with the code. <br /> Bieker stated in his experience every time they turn in a survey,they are scrutinized. Bieker noted the <br /> monuments were also listed as an item on the hardcover calculation very clearly. Bieker stated there were <br /> approximately ten items listed and the monuments were clearly listed along with the calculations for the <br /> pool. Bieker stated in his view it should have been noted that they were there even though it was an <br /> application for a pool. Bieker stated every time a homeowner does a project, a new survey is turned in <br /> and that in his view the monuments should have been noticed by the City. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the monuments were a line item on the hardcover calculations. <br /> Bieker indicated they are and that he could provide a copy of it. <br /> Curtis stated she is in agreement that the monuments were listed on the hardcover calculations but that <br /> hardcover was not a concern with the property due to the size. <br /> Lemke asked if the monuments existed at that time. <br /> Bieker indicated they had not been constructed at that point and that the survey said proposed. <br /> Berg asked if there was a need for a permit when the monuments were proposed. <br /> Curtis stated monuments require a building permit along with a footing inspection. <br /> Page 12 of 15 <br />