My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-17-2018 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
09-17-2018 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 11:02:21 AM
Creation date
1/15/2020 11:01:09 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
282
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 20, 2018 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Thiesse noted the issues raised during the workshop have been incorporated into the ordinance and that he <br />is fine with the ordinance so far. <br />Thiesse stated as it relates to private recreational facilities, hockey rinks typically come with boards and <br />lights, and asked whether they would be included with sports courts. <br />Curtis stated private recreational facilities would include some things the City already has a specific <br />regulation for but then would also include such things that are stationary or mobile, such as a hockey rink <br />or a basketball hoop. Curtis stated there is value in having discussion about some of the mobile things <br />since they could have a massing impact but noted not everything that is listed has the same kind of <br />impact. <br />Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that and that perhaps they should also look at the intent. <br />Thiesse commented someone could string a batting cage all the way across their property 50 feet from the <br />lake, which could result in the neighbors having to look through that to see the lake. <br />Curtis noted setbacks would apply, but if they are called private recreational facilities, each district would <br />have its own accessory structure setbacks. <br />Thiesse stated he would like the Planning Commission at some point to look at that. <br />Lemke asked whether any consideration should be given to the permanence of the structure and the length <br />of time that it will be there. <br />Barnhart stated variables such as permanence and season -ability can be brought into the equation. <br />Curtis stated she will attempt to have a draft ordinance ready for next month's meeting that would <br />incorporate the general accessory building and accessory structure general regulations but that the issue is <br />complicated due to some of the exceptions and allowances for different types of structures. <br />Thiesse asked whether retaining walls should be included or whether language should be included that <br />says it is regulated somewhere else. <br />Curtis stated retaining walls are included in the non -encroachment sections. Curtis noted the City does <br />not define everything that is considered a structure but generally defines it as something that is <br />constructed or built rather than a boulder. <br />Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to table Application No. 18-000057, City of Orono, Text <br />Amendment — Accessory Building and Structure Setbacks and to continue the public hearing. <br />VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />5. LAI 8-000059 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — SIGNS, 7:30 P.M. — 7:40 P.M. <br />Barnhart stated this draft ordinance would delete and replace all of the sign regulations within the City <br />Code. The ordinance is intended to remove sign regulations based on what the sign says, which is free <br />speech concern. Another goal with the ordinance is to clarify the regulations. <br />Page 9 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.