Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCH MEniM <br />Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />JUL 241983 <br />nomz <br />Date: <br />cmroFomw <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />July 21, 1989 <br />Subject: Ordinance Amendment, Oversized Accessory Structures <br />List of Exhibits > <br />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. JJhe 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 (tenni« 'courts, pools, <br />decks, etc.) of which any part ln» ' tng fences or <br />walls extends more than 6* above grade /el. <br />Since the intent of the lot coverage ordinance is to limit <br />visual density on a property, it would seem appropriate <br />that any improvement that exceeds 6' in height would <br />reasonably be considered a visual Impact and should be <br />included in coverage. Since the maximum allowed fence <br />is 6*, yards t are fenced in with a 6* fence would not be <br />counted as l»^c coverage, but a tennis court with 10*-12' <br />fences would be included, as would a gazebo or other <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.