Laserfiche WebLink
To: <br />Dat«$ <br />Subject: <br />Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bemhardson <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning <br />July 21, 1989 <br />Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures <br />List of Exhibits - . j ,Exhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Minor Revisions Since <br />Last Meeting <br />Exhibit B - Memo & Exhibits of 7/7/89 <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 cove a requirements for small lot •, <br />structures to bo included nc.'/e 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 <br />visual density on a property, it would seem <br />that any improvement that exceeds 6' xn height would <br />reasonably be considered a visual impact and should be <br />included in lot coverage. Since the maximum aHw*** <br />is 6’, yards that are fenced in with a 6' fence would Mt be <br />counted as lot coverage, but a tennis otherv <br />fences would be included, as would a gazebo <br />accessory building. Pools might or might not <br />depending their height above grade and the type of fencing <br />or walls existing.