Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 17,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler and Thiesse agreed. <br /> Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 3. <br /> Curtis stated if the home is extremely far from the front lot line, an accessory building could be located at <br /> the principal structure setback. <br /> Thiesse stated the intent is to keep structures away from the road, and if there was an accessory structure <br /> in front of the house,the architecture should match the house. Thiesse commented he is not sure why the <br /> City would preclude people from putting the structure in front of their house as long as it is meeting the <br /> setback and architectural standards of the principal structure. <br /> Olson indicated he is in agreement with that. <br /> Lemke stated it is hard to determine what architectural standards are. <br /> Barnhart stated they would look at materials since Orono does not have an architecture review committee. <br /> Staff can draft some language and bring it back to the Planning Commission. <br /> Landgraver stated the word accessory implies it is the subordinate building, which should not be the first <br /> building someone sees but sometimes the only place that is buildable is the front of the lot. <br /> Curtis asked if there are some zoning districts where it would be more appropriate to consider. <br /> Libby stated having some kind of architectural uniformity would be nice, but since the uses will vary,it is <br /> difficult to mandate whether they are located in the front, side,or back. <br /> Curtis stated if the City allows an accessory building ahead of the principal structure,the City already has <br /> a provision that talks about exterior finishes and that can be incorporated into this. <br /> Barnhart stated the benefits should outweigh the challenges and that the goal of the zoning districts is to <br /> preserve open spaces and yards. There may not be a big difference if the first building you see is an <br /> accessory structure if the materials are addressed. <br /> Lemke commented they might be assuming that the accessory building will be ugly. <br /> Barnhart indicated Staff will come back with some language for the Planning Commission to review. <br /> Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No.4. <br /> Erickson stated another way of looking at it is whether it changes the character of the neighborhood. <br /> Thiesse asked if it would be a practical difficulty if someone came in with a nonconforming structure that <br /> they would like to modify if it was constructed before the code changed. <br /> Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated an example would be an old garage with a 6:12 roof which is <br /> now halfway into the setback. The owners would now like to reroof it and make the roof pitch higher, <br /> which would be an expansion into the setback. Currently those are considered for a variance. Curtis <br /> indicated she is not sure how many conforming buildings may become nonconforming with the changes. <br /> Page 20 of 22 <br />