Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (Planning Commission Comments,continued) <br /> Gaffron stated that sign itself did not,but the applications for commercial development along <br /> Highway 12 helped push the ordinance to the forefront. Gaffron indicated the Council did raise a <br /> concern regarding the possibility of having too many signs around the building. Gaffron stated Staff <br /> does have a sign ordinance update that is more extensive. <br /> Curtis noted any future signs at that site would need to be approved as part of the PUD. Curtis <br /> commented the sign ordinance probably does need to be addressed in the future and that an outline of <br /> the update could be given to the Planning Commission for their review. Curtis indicated Staff at the <br /> present time has to complete work on the Wetland Ordinance. <br /> Kempf inquired whether the Planning Commission should look at the ordinance that defines what a <br /> front yard and a side yard are. <br /> Gundlach indicated to her knowledge the language in that ordinance is fairly common among cities. <br /> Rahn stated that ordinance deals primarily with lots that are long and that the Simon lot was probably <br /> a unique situation since the lot was squarer than most corner lots. <br /> Gaffron commented one option the Planning Commission could look at would be to include language <br /> in the ordinance that gives the property owner a one-time opportunity to designate what they would <br /> like to be considered the front of the lot. Gaffron indicated he has seen that type of language included <br /> in other ordinances but that he is not sure whether that is the best route. <br /> Jurgens indicated he does deal with that type of situation a lot as a surveyor,noting that surveyors <br /> prefer not to draw in the setbacks but rather indicate on the survey what the setbacks are supposed to <br /> be. Jurgens stated if they are required to draw the setbacks in,they request a letter from the city <br /> declaring what the front and the side lot lines are. Jurgens stated in his opinion the surveyor or the <br /> architect should have contacted the city earlier to find out where the front of the lot was. <br /> Kempf inquired whether there were any disadvantages to giving the property owner the ability to <br /> make that determination. <br /> Gaffron stated it would be one more thing that staff would need to verify and could easily be missed <br /> since it does not match the language in the code. <br /> Bremer commented it should only apply in very unique situations such as a very square corner lot. <br /> Jurgens stated if it is such a unique situation, it might constitute a hardship,but in his view the Simon <br /> property did not constitute a hardship since the slope was not very steep. <br /> Leslie suggested delaying action on possibly revising the ordinance unless another similar situation <br /> occurs. <br /> PAGE 26 <br />