Laserfiche WebLink
\^L <br />To:Mayor Grabek fi Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning <br />Date: <br />Subject: <br />July 21, 1989 - - - - <br />Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures <br />List of Exhibits - . . .Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance Minor Revisions Since <br />Last Meeting <br />Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits ' 7/89 <br />Discussion - <br />This item was tabled at your July 10th meeting for further <br />review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments <br />from Council members. <br />A few minor changes have been proposed since your last <br />meeting, as follows: <br />1. The language that defines pools as non-oversized <br />accessory structures makes it more clear that grade-level, <br />non—encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the <br />structure. <br />2. For the 15% lot coverage requirements for small lots, <br />structures to be included have been defined as follows: <br />a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6* in <br />height above grade level. <br />b) Any non-roofed structure (tennis courts, pools, <br />decks, etc.) of which any part including fences or <br />walls extends more than 6' above grade level. <br />Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limit <br />visual density on a property, it would seem <br />that any improvement that exceeds 6 xn height <br />reasonably, be considered a visual impact and should be <br />included in lot coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence <br />is 6', yards that are fenced in with a 6' fence would n^ot b^e <br />counted as lot coverage, but a tennis court <br />fences would be included, as would a gazebo or <br />accessory building. Pools might or might not be included <br />depending their height above grade and the type of fencing <br />or walls existing.