Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 20,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis indicated that was added to clarify things and it is a relatively recent change. <br /> Thiesse stated in his mind a basketball hoop is different than a swimming pool or a tennis court and that <br /> he is not sure they can all be lumped together. <br /> Curtis asked if the Planning Commission likes the format of the draft ordinance. <br /> Thiesse indicated he likes the format. <br /> Curtis stated the intent is to include the new tables and replace the little table in the code for each district <br /> so there is one concise accessory structure section that is applicable to all districts. <br /> Thiesse asked whether Staff feels the average homeowner will be able to understand it. <br /> Curtis stated in Staffs view it is laid out in a clearer format and is easier to understand. <br /> Barnhart stated in his view the questions people might not understand is what is considered an oversized <br /> structure and the interior setback,both of which are easily addressed in the code. <br /> Curtis stated Staff took away from the discussion at the work session that the Planning Commission does <br /> not necessarily see the need to regulate based on 700 or 1000 square feet for a structure that does not have <br /> a massing impact,but that Staff is proposing to separate out a 1000 square foot structure or over a 1000 <br /> square foot structures. The draft ordinance also eliminates any special regulation for sport courts,large <br /> tennis courts,pools and flat things accessory structures without a roof and put them into a different <br /> category. <br /> Curtis stated to that end,there are some pieces of the proposed table the Planning Commission may want <br /> to discuss. Currently the Code is somewhat silent on front street setback for less than 1000 square foot <br /> accessory structures and it may appear someone could have it at right at the front lot line. Staff does not <br /> feel it is appropriate to have a pool or other accessory structure there and the Planning Commission may <br /> want to discuss that. With the draft ordinance, Staff is trying to look at the impact and what is allowed. <br /> Lemke noted under accessory structures/private recreational facilities it says 25 or MCWD buffer. <br /> Lemke asked whether someone could have one or the other. <br /> Curtis indicated that is the current regulation and that if there is a buffer required by the MCWD of 50 <br /> feet,it would need to be 50 feet. Curtis stated they do want to have a setback in place in the event the <br /> MCWD does not require a buffer,which is the 25 feet. <br /> Lemke asked what would happen if he has a shed that is exactly 1000 square feet. <br /> Curtis stated oversized is currently defined as larger than 1000 square feet and that it would be considered <br /> an accessory structure if it is less than 1000. Curtis stated a building at 1000 square feet would be <br /> considered an accessory structure. <br /> Barnhart commented the definition may have to be adjusted slightly to clarify that. <br /> Page 8 of 12 <br />