03-12-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINDTBS OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 22, 1990 ACCESSORY STRUCTORE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Adninis^rntor Bernhardson 0xplain@d that the issue was whether pools should be included as lot coverage without a fence, or only in cases v/here there is a 6' fence surrounding a poo 1. The Planning Comruission reconunended that the Ordinance remain as is. Bernhardson said that the Planning Commission is considering the visual density aspect of this ordinance. He said the Ordinance could also be considered from the aspect of how much structure exists on a property regardless of whether it is above or below groi’ad. A third way to consider the Ordinance would be from a hardcover standpoint. Bernhardson said that he prefers to consider the Ordinance from a total structural lot coverage aspect. He said that one property could have a principal structure, swimming pool, tennis court, and driveway which would leave very little grass. CounciGoc^tten agreed. Acting Mayor Callahan and CounciImember Peterson indicated that they too agreed that lot coverage should be the issue. Gaffron suggested that if the Council is going to view this Ordinance from a lot coverage aspe^'*-, that all flat surfaces are going to have to be considered. That would include patios, sidewalks, and driveways, which would be a hardcover issue. City Attorney Barrett said that what Gaffron was suggesting, that if the present ordinance is to be a structure ordinance, then it is inadequate. It does not address all the possible structures that could exist on a particular property. He said that the Ordinance wa= drafted with a different perspective than that of the Council's. He suggested that the Council may wish to consider whether their perspective is a separate, hardcover issue. CounciImember Peterson said that when the reference was made to lot coverage of 15% for lots 0-1.99 acres, that it was referring to everything that covered the ground. said that the intention of the Planning Commission was that if structure would be limited to only 15%, then it would include onlv structures that are above ground. It would not include side/alks, driveways, etc. CounciImembers Goetten and Peterson indicated that they did not interpret the Ordinance that way. Acting Mayor Callahan said that though patios without pools could be considered the same as patios around pools, tha : there is a difference. He thought that the intent of the Ordinance was to address lot coverage, not projections upward. Callahan believed that the Ordinance should be amended to include pools as part of lot coverage.