Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
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 />