Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, OCTOBER IS, 2001 <br />(#01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING, CONTINUED) <br />at the time they adopted the ordinance to include pools in the calculation of structural lot coverage. <br />Gaffron noted the City also has an accessory structure ordinance regulating pools and other structures <br />as far as setbacks are concerned. Gaffron stated normally the City only includes things that are six <br />feet above grade in their calculations of structural lot coverage, and in his view this ordinance should <br />be revisited. <br />Hawn recommended the Planning Commission review this ordinance at a work session. <br />Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need to have a work session the early part of <br />November to discuss another topic, and suggested this item be added to that agenda. <br />Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the pool remaining as long as there is an <br />understanding that the pool will be removed if structural coverage is over IS percent. <br />Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants also own Lots 42 and 43. <br />Mrs. King stated those lots are the property of the City of Orono. <br />Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would build a new residence if the ordinance is not amended. <br />Mr. King stated they may elect not to build a new residence if the ordinance is not changed. <br />Hawn stated the Planning Commission may want to place a time limit on when the pool should be <br />removed if the Applicants choose to build a new residence and the ordinance is not amended. <br />Mr. King stated Staff sent them a letter stating the pool would need to be removed at the time the <br />existing house was demolished. <br />Hawn stated that would be fine. <br />Kluth stated the Applicants have one year to decide whether they want to construct the new residence. <br />Lindquist pointed out if the ordinance is to be amended, it probably will not happen until January or <br />February’. <br />Mr. King stated they understand that. Mr. King inquired whether an above ground pool would also <br />be considered structural coverage. <br />Mabusth stated it would be considered structural depending on the size of the pool. <br />Hawn moved, Lindqubt seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2727, Mary and <br />Joe King, 142 Chevy Chase Drive, granting of a lot area variance, and granting of a conditional <br />variance for accessory stmeture without a principal structure that would only be effective if the <br />code is changed to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage, with the <br />understanding the pool will he removed at the time the house b demoibhed if the ordinance b <br />not amended. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br />PAGE 24