Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 20, 2018 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Barnhart stated in his view the issues are addressable and the next step is to take it to the City Council or <br />the applicants can make changes to their proposal and bring it back to the Planning Commission. <br />Gustafson stated they would like to take a look at the larger project and then decide what to do. <br />Thiesse stated in regards to the fill, there typically is an inspection of the road prior to construction and an <br />inspection after construction to determine whether any damage has occurred. <br />Gustafson stated they likely will have to bring in some fill to construct the house, which is typical, but <br />that they will not be filling in the wetland area. <br />The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. <br />4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY BUILDING <br />AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 7:09 P.M. — 7:30 P.M. <br />Curtis noted this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred in June regarding proposed changes for <br />Accessory Building and Accessory Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been <br />regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the <br />existing setbacks are needed. <br />Staff has prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format as well as a <br />similar table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R-lA, R1-B, LR-lA, and LR-1B districts <br />as a starting point. Any proposed changes in the setbacks are the result of discussions with the Planning <br />Commission at a work session. <br />Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses <br />within each residential district. However, the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too <br />much up to interpretation. Within the existing regulations tables the setbacks noted with a question mark <br />are done so because it appears the current regulations are ambiguous or silent to those particular setback <br />requirements. The draft proposed regulations tables attempt to clear up these identified ambiguous areas. <br />The Planning Commission should discuss whether all private recreational facilities should be treated <br />equally or regulated at all. The definition of private recreational facilities includes detached structures or <br />equipment, whether stationary or mobile, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and sport courts, hockey <br />rinks, hot tubs, and spas, etc. <br />Curtis stated the public hearing should be reopened tonight. <br />The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. <br />Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. <br />There were no comments relating to this application. <br />Curtis recommended the public hearing be continued to next month. <br />Thiesse stated in his view they cannot lump private recreational facilities in with the accessory structures. <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />