Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 20,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated in his view the issues are addressable and the next step is to take it to the City Council or <br /> the applicants can make changes to their proposal and bring it back to the Planning Commission. <br /> Gustafson stated they would like to take a look at the larger project and then decide what to do. <br /> Thiesse stated in regards to the fill,there typically is an inspection of the road prior to construction and an <br /> inspection after construction to determine whether any damage has occurred. <br /> Gustafson stated they likely will have to bring in some fill to construct the house,which is typical,but <br /> that they will not be filling in the wetland area. <br /> The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br /> 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY BUILDING <br /> AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS,7:09 P.M.—7:30 P.M. <br /> Curtis noted this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred in June regarding proposed changes for <br /> Accessory Building and Accessory Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been <br /> regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the <br /> existing setbacks are needed. <br /> Staff has prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format as well as a <br /> similar table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R-1A,R1-B,LR-1A, and LR-1B districts <br /> as a starting point. Any proposed changes in the setbacks are the result of discussions with the Planning <br /> Commission at a work session. <br /> Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses <br /> within each residential district. However,the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too <br /> much up to interpretation. Within the existing regulations tables the setbacks noted with a question mark <br /> are done so because it appears the current regulations are ambiguous or silent to those particular setback <br /> requirements. The draft proposed regulations tables attempt to clear up these identified ambiguous areas. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss whether all private recreational facilities should be treated <br /> equally or regulated at all. The definition of private recreational facilities includes detached structures or <br /> equipment,whether stationary or mobile, such as swimming pools,tennis courts and sport courts,hockey <br /> rinks,hot tubs,and spas,etc. <br /> Curtis stated the public hearing should be reopened tonight. <br /> The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. <br /> There were no comments relating to this application. <br /> Curtis recommended the public hearing be continued to next month. <br /> Thiesse stated in his view they cannot lump private recreational facilities in with the accessory structures. <br /> Page 7 of 12 <br />