11-19-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,October 15,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby stated in his view there almost has to have universal application of the rules unless someone has a lot where the accessory structure is not visible at all. Olson noted in a two-acre district,there might not be much visibility. Curtis asked if these rules would make sense in the half-acre and one-acre zones. Libby commented that would make sense. If different zones are being treated differently,there should be different rules and that he is not sure it is needed in the rural districts. Curtis noted rural districts are typically where an accessory building is constructed, and that she is not sure it should be universally applied. Barnhart stated Staff feels it would be more appropriately applied to the rural districts than the half-acre district,which is why there is a distinction between the two zoning districts. Landgraver stated if it was applied to the denser districts, it could create a whole host of problems and would not apply to where the demand is either. Landgraver stated in his view this is a good start, and if Staff finds there are people in other areas that want to put a shed streetward of the house,they can look at it again. The was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the language in Section 23 is acceptable. Curtis stated the second item relates to increasing the maximum size for an oversized accessory building and increasing the total accessory building footprint totals for lots over nine acres. This refers to Section 78-1430 in the current code. The existing table ends at nine acres and caps at 3,000 single footprint building. Curtis indicated she took the same formula used in the other size breakdowns and expanded the table. Staff is recommending for lots 13 acres to 14 acres,as well as 14 acres or more,be allowed a total of 8,000 square footprint instead of 7,000. The change would allow larger properties to have a larger building and then the total of accessory structures would be increased as well. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the language relating to maximum size and total accessory building footprint totals is acceptable. Curtis stated she would like input from the Planning Commission on the tables regarding flexible side setbacks. Allow exception to apply to increase flexibility for narrow lots. The change would not apply to lots over five acres. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Item 3 is acceptable. Curtis stated the last item relates to rear/street and front/street setbacks for both lake and non-lakeshore lots. Staff has added rear/street to the table from a setback standpoint. The City does have a side street and a rear street already. Thiesse stated street side is also the rear side on a lakeshore property and that they could leave it as street side. Curtis indicated the City also has a street side.