Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
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 Staff's 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 />