Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 17,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart indicated he will have to look into that. Barnhart stated the original preliminary plat can either <br /> be amended or there can be a separate one for this development. The final plat can either reflect this as a <br /> single buildable lot or simply the townhome units or both. <br /> The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br /> 9. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY BUILDING <br /> AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS,8:25 P.M.—8:55 P.M. <br /> Curtis noted this is a continuation of a discussion that started back in June regarding proposed changes for <br /> Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed so far have been regarding the overall <br /> organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are <br /> needed. <br /> Staff took the feedback given at the August meeting and continued to develop the remainder of the <br /> residential tables based upon the previously agreed-upon philosophy. The RS District has some <br /> additional complications and Staff is seeking guidance on how to proceed regarding accessory <br /> building/structure setbacks in that district. <br /> The Planning Commission should review the additional tables and the setbacks contemplated within those <br /> tables. In addition, Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on the following: <br /> 1. RS Seasonal Recreational District—Big Island/Deering Island. The current minimum side yard <br /> setbacks for all structures and buildings are based on the width of the property. <br /> 2. Staff has proposed to allow for Accessory Buildings to follow the nonconforming lot width <br /> flexibility for side setbacks but does not provide the same for Oversized Accessory Buildings and <br /> Accessory structures. Does the Planning Commission wish to discuss this further or to explore <br /> other setback flexibilities? <br /> 3. The current City regulations would prohibit an Accessory Building/Oversized Accessory <br /> Building to be located streetward of the principal building. Staff would like Planning <br /> Commission feedback on this requirement. If an AB or OAB meets the required principal <br /> building setback and the principal building itself is set back further than the minimum, is it <br /> appropriate for the AB/OAB to be closer to the street? What are the impacts, if any? <br /> 4. Some of the proposed changes,where setbacks have been increased with this amendment, may <br /> result in a significant number of existing buildings in the City becoming legal nonconformities <br /> which would limit their expansion, etc. There is no inventory of the accessory buildings so an <br /> accurate number is not realistic. The Planning Commission should discuss the potential impacts <br /> for property owners. <br /> 5. Private recreational facilities may warrant their own discussion for clarification. Private <br /> 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 <br /> leave too much up to interpretation. <br /> To date no public comments have been received. <br /> Page 17 of 22 <br />