Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />June 20, 2023 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />neighbors and felt those concerns don't apply here. Also, this protects the majority of trees on the <br />property and they were interested in being good stewards of the environment. <br />Libby said he had visited and would call it an estate setting in that it is very private. He asked why they <br />approached their storage needs as an accessory structure rather than as an addition to the house. <br />Daly explained they felt this approach served all the needs better including extra cars and turnaround. <br />The applicant said part of the intent was to be able to have the snowmobile trailer inside rather than sitting <br />outside on the property. He said the house itself was already a little larger than they wanted so they didn't <br />want to plan an addition to the house. He also said living in the country he prefers larger vehicles. <br />Acting Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. <br />There was no public comment. <br />Acting Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. <br />Ressler asked how the City came up with the 1,000 foot standard for oversize accessory buildings. <br />Curtis said over -sized buildings to the front of the building, the streetward side, did not use to be <br />permitted but a change was made several years ago to permit them in rural areas. She said they would be <br />permitted to build a structure that size if it were behind or even with the house. <br />Oakden noted that the 1000 square foot building was limited and it was intended to make sure it was a <br />relatively smaller building and that the main footprint and the principal building stayed as the larger mass <br />structure on the on the site as intended to maintain that principal look. <br />Libby said the intent of the ordinance was to not have intrusive structures too far out toward the road. But <br />this is a unique circumstance, he said, where it does have the appearance of being quite a significant piece <br />of property. He added it would be defeating this family's needs by pulling 400 feet out of the building that <br />they need to have. Moving it to the back of the house would be impractical. He said he would be in favor <br />of the application. <br />Kraemer said he agreed with Commissioner Libby, noting that there are obstructions on the back of the <br />lot. He said if they are limited to 1,000 feet the City would just end up with snowmobile trailers and other <br />vehicles outside. <br />Erickson said he had served on the ordinance committee as well and in 10 years of serving on the Long <br />Lake and Orono Planning Commissions he can't remember any time when an applicant was approved for <br />a variance when he had two avenues to conform to the ordinance. He said most of the practical difficulties <br />were not met. He pointed out the applicant was asking for a building 40 percent larger than the ordinance. <br />Libby pointed out they were asking for 1,000 feet less than they could build if they built it behind the <br />house. <br />Ressler said he did not think the request was egregious but the City does have its code to follow. <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />