02-26-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Unci 1 desiresstructures Pools in th«acnir%-“ ■-v.i?.-be present ordinance a doS are^e information.an,end™ent be drafted, urther discussion.On • j ^ ^ /-"r-tbVa vS:--be treated as ®*^ height ?L- ''® “dlls or ' on their "h“e?gh?"ebove“gr;"^^^ - Moved bv ted the tr^c —' S6*onded bv . %“i ‘a %%"ir„\\^Siri?a\'r%\- TDs Mayor Grabok ft Orono Council Members City Administrator BernhardsonMichael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning s Zoning July 21» 1969DatesSobjacts Ordinance Amendment* Oversized Accessory StructuresList of Bzhibits - a a a *.jExhibit A - Proposed Ordinance with Minor Revisions SinceLast MeetingExhibit B - Memo ft Exhibits of 7/7/89 Oiscossion -This item was tabled at your July 10th meeting for further review. As of this writing, I have received no further comments from Council members. A few minor changes have been proposed since your last meeting* as follows: 1. The language that defines pools as non-oversized accessory structures makes it more clear that grade-level* non-encroaching patios will not be considered as part of the structure . 2. For the 151 lot coverage requirements for small lots* structures to be included have been defined as follows: a) Any roofed or covered structure exceeding 6’ in height above grade level. b) Any non—roofed structure (tennis courts* pools* decks* etc.) of which any part including fences or walls extends more than 6' above grade level. Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limib visual density on a property* it would seem appropriate that any Improvement that exceeds 6’ in height reasonably be considered a visual impact *nd should be Included in lot coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence is 6'* yards that are fenced M with a 6' fence would Mt be counted as lot coverage* t a tennis court with 10-12 fences would be includer s would a gazebo or other^v.^ accessory building. Pooli. ^i.ght or might not be includeo depending their height above grade and the type of fencing or walls existing.