Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 16,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated due to the topography of the lot,a variance is needed. Leskinen stated she understands <br /> the neighbor's perspective and she takes that into consideration,but if the Planning Commission looks at <br /> what the code says and what they need to do in order to grant a variance,they need to establish a practical <br /> difficulty,which they have done. <br /> Thiesse asked what the practical difficulty is. <br /> Leskinen stated it would be the topography and the wetland buffers. Leskinen indicated she would not be <br /> opposed to recommending as a condition of approval some screening of the new structure. <br /> Thiesse stated the intent of the setback is to protect the neighbors and to keep space between the <br /> neighbors. Thiesse stated in his view the intent has not been met and that it is an encroachment into space <br /> that the neighbors thought would not be used and that there is a lot of flat land in front of the circle that is <br /> usable. Thiesse stated it is a practical difficulty to encroach on the side yard when something can be <br /> reconfigured to not encroach in that area. <br /> Leskinen asked if the other area is flat enough. <br /> Thiesse pointed out the 1000 contour and noted the whole area inside of it should be flat. <br /> Lemke commented the applicants would not get the same thing as what they are proposing. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he does not see any attempt to place it in a more conforming spot. <br /> Landgraver stated the end result could be a 30-foot structure that is just as visible but it ended up costing <br /> the applicant more money to redesign it. Landgraver noted that area is at the top of the hill,which would <br /> make it even more visible. <br /> Schoenzeit noted it would be further away from the property line. <br /> Thiesse commented there is no doubt in his mind the neighbors will see it. <br /> Landgraver stated it will still end up with the same result in terms of visual impact. Landgraver noted if <br /> the structure is in a conforming location,the applicants will not need to come before the Planning <br /> Commission or City Council. <br /> Schoenzeit stated since the applicant is tearing down the existing structure,it would be a clean sheet and <br /> that the applicant can be more creative with locating it. <br /> Schwingler stated any neighbor can say the same thing about the leaves falling and that he feels the <br /> variance is a reasonable request. <br /> Lemke stated he would deny it. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the roles were reversed,he would want the City to uphold the codes. <br /> Page 24 of 32 <br />