Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ' , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16,2010 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The City of Orono has not formally adopted a historic registry or regulations to protect and preserve <br /> structures considered by some to be historically significant to the City or to the Lake Minnetonka area. <br /> One method of preserving historical buildings is to move them from a site to be developed or to be <br /> changed on to a new site where the building can be preserved. The City's accessory structure regulations <br /> may make it dif�cult to allow for preservation of buildings,particularly large buildings,without special <br /> consideration or variances. <br /> Staff is suggesting a minor change be made to the maximum accessory size limitation in order to facilitate <br /> the potential preservation of some local historical structures. The current code limits the maximum size <br /> of an accessory structure based on the property area. The suggested amendment would exempt structures <br /> with local,historical significance from the maximum individual accessory structure size. The square <br /> footage of the structure would still apply to the total square footage of accessory structures allowed for <br /> the property; however, it could exceed the maximum size limit. A definition for"historic building"or <br /> "historically significant"is recommended. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss and develop language for a definition of historic building <br /> and/or historical significance using the above staff suggestions or any other language determined to be <br /> appropriate. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider the following: <br /> 1. Who should decide on the historical significance of a building? <br /> 2. If a historic building is moved to a site,and the exception made for size, should there be any <br /> additional provisions for protection of the historic building? For example,the 2,000 square foot <br /> historic building should not,in the future,become a 2,000 square foot pole barn. <br /> 3. Should an inventory of buildings with historical significance be conducted? <br /> . <br /> The Planning Commission should recommend a code amendment to allow a size exception for buildings <br /> determined to be"historic." The Planning Commission should also draft a definition of"historic <br /> building"or"historically significant"for the Council's review. <br /> Feuss asked whether Staff is recommending any particular language for the definition. <br /> Curtis indicated they are not. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the words culturally or architecturally signi�cant in addition to historical <br /> significance is important in his view for the definition. Schoenzeit asked if there would be a CUP <br /> required or whether it would simply be allowed on a compliant piece of properiy. <br /> Curtis stated it would need to meet all other zoning requirements. Staff is suggesting that the Planning <br /> Commission siructure the definition of historical to include language only allowing historical buildings in <br /> Orono to prevent buildings located in other communities from being brought on to someone's property. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the words local origin would address that. <br /> Page 8 <br />