09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoHdiy, Augiift 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Piaaiiag Comnltsloo Comments, continued) Gaffron stated that sign itself did not, but the applications for commctcial development along Highuoy 12 helped push the ordinance to the forefront. Gaffron indicated the Council did raise a concern regarding the possibility of having too many signs around the building. Gaffron stated Staff does have a sign ordmmee update that is more exiensiw. Curtis noted any future signs at that site n-ould need to be approved as part of the PUD. Cunts commented the sign ordinance probably does need to be addressed in the future and that an outline of the update could be given to the Planning Commission for their rcviesv. Cunis indicated Staff at the present time has to complete w ork on the Welland Ordinance. Kempf inquired whether the Planning Commission should look at the ordinance that defines what a front >‘ard and a side yard are. Gundlach mdicater^ to her knowledge the lan.;uagc m that ordinance is fairly common among cities. Rahn stated that ordinance deals primarily with lots that are long and that the Simon lot w as probably a unique situation since the lot was squarer than most :omer lots. Gaffron commented one option the Planning Commission could look at w ould be to include language in the ordinance that gives the property owner a one-time opportunity to designate what they would like to be considered the front of the lot. Gaffron indicated he has seen that ty pe of language included in other ordinances but that he is not sure whether that is the best route. Jurgens indicated he does deal w ith that type of situation a lot as a surveyor, noting that surveyors prefer not to draw in the setbacks but rather indicate on the survey what the setbacks are supposed to be. Jurgens stated if they are required to draw the setbacks in, they request a letter from the city declanng what the front and the side lot lines are. Jurgens staled in his opinion the surveyor or the architect should have contacted the city earlier to find out where tht front of th«-' >t was Kempf inquired w hether there w ere any disadvantages to giving the property owner the ability to make that determination. Gaffron stated it w ould be one more thing that staff would need to venfy and could easily be missed since It does not match the bnguage in the code. Bremer commented it should only apply in very unique situations such as a very square comer lot. Jurgens stated if it is such a unique situation, it might consumte a hardship, but in his view the Simon property did not constitute a hardship smee the slope was not very steep. Leslie suggested delay ing action on possibly revising the ordinance unless another similar situation oecurs.