Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 20,2008 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#08-3384 CITY OF ORONO,ACCESSORY STRUCTURE CODE CHANGE, CONTINUED) <br /> Bloms noted this application is about to go before the City Council and that she has spoken to Staff on a <br /> number of occasions but was not notified that it was up for discussion this evening. Bloms stated in her <br /> opinion the recommended changes are not as precise as she would like to see. The structure at its peak <br /> is 19 feet tall and was designed to store a boat,has no windows,with one door on the side. Bloms <br /> stated it is possible to construct an attractive structure and that the proposed changes to the code are not <br /> sufficient. When a person proposes constructing a structure of that size,the neighbors should be <br /> notified of it and that they did not become aware of it until construction commenced. Bloms requested <br /> that notification to the neighbors be required in the code. <br /> Berg asked whether there was a variance requested for the building or whether it fit the codes at the time <br /> it was constructed. <br /> Turner stated the building required no variances and the impetus for this code change is the building <br /> being discussed currently. <br /> Kempf stated what is being considered this evening is the result of considerable discussion at the <br /> Planning Commission work sessions. <br /> Bloms requested that other individuals be given the opportunity to discuss this at a future Planning <br /> Commission meeting. <br /> Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. <br /> Kempf stated there are two buildings currently within Orono that are problem buildings and that over <br /> the course of a long period,there have been very few problems. Kempf commented the Planning <br /> Commission understands the concerns of the neighbor and that it is obvious the person spent as little <br /> money as possible without consideration to the neighbors. The Planning Commission looked at <br /> controlling the height of side walls but that the problem the Planning Commission encountered was that <br /> if they limited the size and shape of the building,the City would be limiting a number of buildings that <br /> would add to the character of Orono. <br /> Kempf stated it becomes an issue of whether the City should regulate all of the various options that <br /> people may request for an accessory structure in order to protect against a rare situation such as this. <br /> Kempf noted the City does propose to have a higher standard for accessory structures that are located <br /> near the street but that it is not the City's desire to limit architectural creativity on the entire lot. <br /> Berg noted the building inspector is not there to determine whether a structure is attractive or not but to <br /> ensure that the building meets all the applicable codes. Berg commented she understands the concerns <br /> of Mrs. Bloms but that the City is limited in what it can do in that particular situation. <br /> Curtis noted the City has very little discretion on some applications and that if the building meets the <br /> building code and other applicable codes,there is very little the City can do to control the appearance of <br /> an accessory structure. <br /> Bloms stated she would have liked the building inspector to have notified Council of this issue but that <br /> she understands the City is limited in what they can do in a situation like this. Bloms stated given the <br /> PAGE 12 <br />