Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 18,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY STRUCTURES <br /> SETBACK,8:07 P.M.—8:22 P.M. <br /> Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance would clarify and restate the setbacks for accessory structures <br /> throughout the City. The City has specific rules for accessory structures and buildings based on their size <br /> and, in some cases,the size of the lot and whether it is a lakeshore lot and where on the property it is <br /> located. These exceptions and regulations have evolved over time to the point where they are difficult to <br /> understand and require extensive flowcharting to drill down to the applicable regulation. <br /> Staff is proposing a wholesale rewrite of this section of the Code. Three primary goals have been <br /> identified: <br /> 1. Ease of use. The user can find the applicable regulation using common logic. <br /> 2. Ease of understanding. The user can understand the regulation and how it applies to their <br /> question. Reduce the number of exceptions. <br /> 3. Remove unnecessary regulation. In some cases regulations designed to address a singular <br /> concern will be removed in the interest of Goals 1 and 2 above. <br /> Barnhart stated another objective will be to reduce the number of exceptions. The draft ordinance will <br /> include applicable definitions for accessory use or structure, building and structure, and oversized <br /> accessory structures. <br /> Staff proposes delineating the setbacks for accessory structures in a table format within each district along <br /> with an example table for discussion purposes for the LR-1A zoning district. Sample zonal impacts <br /> include a lake lot and a nonlake lot. Other zonal impacts to be taken into consideration are the lake yard, <br /> the public area adjacent to a street,hardcover limits, and massing. <br /> The orange on the map depicts the more immediate impact to the neighbors. Barnhart noted he did not <br /> include potential setbacks because those would change based on the different zone. The blue area depicts <br /> the building zone where the main principal structure and oversized accessory structures would be <br /> appropriate. The green depicts the intermediate area where an oversized accessory structure might go. <br /> Barnhart stated the proposal by Staff is to codify those areas for each individual zoning district using that <br /> as the underlying philosophy. Barnhart noted there will still be some things that will be unique to each <br /> lot. <br /> Barnhart stated he would like to know if the Planning Commission feels there is a problem with the <br /> zoning code as it relates to accessory structures and what they would like to see in the ordinance for it to <br /> be successful to the users of the ordinance. <br /> McCutcheon asked if Staff would like to have a diagram of what is possible instead of having a list of <br /> setbacks. <br /> Barnhart stated the diagram would be useful from a discussion standpoint but that in the actual code there <br /> would be setback numbers. Barnhart stated the ordinance is very conceptual at this stage, and if the <br /> Planning Commission thinks accessory structures are okay in the intermediate zone for whatever zoning <br /> Page 19 of 21 <br />