Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, September 17,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is also in agreement. <br /> Curtis stated the Planning Commission can change the side setback requirements for an accessory <br /> structure on Big Island if they would like but that on a 200 foot wide lot it currently has to be 50 feet <br /> away from the lot line no matter what size the shed is. Or the Planning Commission can proceed with the <br /> current setbacks if they feel they are acceptable. <br /> Ressler stated unless Staff is receiving a lot of questions about it, he would leave it as is. <br /> Barnhart indicated Staffs goal is to reduce the need for variances that can be anticipated, and if they <br /> follow the setback based on the width of the lot,that provides some flexibility and separation in the <br /> development that is already there. Currently lot width is measured at the lake and measured at the 75-foot <br /> line, and the question is what happens if those numbers are different. <br /> Curtis stated currently they give the property owner the benefit of the doubt with the smaller number in <br /> this situation. <br /> Thiesse stated the intent is to keep the structures away from the property line and that he would measure it <br /> from the location of structure. <br /> Curtis stated the LR-1A District currently has a 200-foot minimum and allows a principal structure to be <br /> 30 feet from the side. Staff is proposing to allow an accessory building at 15 feet and an oversized <br /> accessory building at 30 feet. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would like Big Island to have <br /> different requirements. <br /> Thiesse noted the City has not received any feedback from residents of Big Island and that he would leave <br /> them where they are. <br /> Erickson stated in his view it is good to minimize density on Big Island since they do not have sewer and <br /> that he would encourage them to combine lots whenever possible. <br /> Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 2 in Staffs report. <br /> Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission would like to apply the nonconforming lot widths to <br /> accessory buildings and allow buildings under 1,000 feet to follow the same flexibility given to the <br /> principal structure on those lots,which in some cases would be 7.5 feet. That flexibility would not be <br /> extended to oversized accessory buildings or to accessory structures. <br /> Olson asked what methodology <br /> Curtis stated currently a 50-foot lot would be allowed to have a 7.5 foot setback for a principal structure <br /> but a 10' x 10' shed would need to meet a 10-foot setback. Staff is looking for direction on whether that <br /> accessory building should be allowed at the 7.5-foot setback but are not proposing to extend the flexibility <br /> to the oversized accessory building. A 900 square foot building could be 7.5 feet but not a 1,000 square <br /> foot building. <br /> Olson commented he is good with that. <br /> Page 19 of 22 <br />