Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY,OCTOBER 15,2001 <br /> (#01-2727 MARY AND JOE KING,CONTINUED) <br /> at the time they adopted the ordinance to include pools in the calculation of structural lot coverage. <br /> Gaffron noted the City also has an accessory structure ordinance regulating pools and other structures <br /> as far as setbacks are concerned. Gaffron stated normally the City only includes things that are six <br /> feet above grade in their calculations of structural lot coverage, and in his view this ordinance should <br /> be revisited. <br /> Hawn recommended the Planning Commission review this ordinance at a work session. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission would need to have a work session the early part of <br /> November to discuss another topic, and suggested this item be added to that agenda. <br /> Lindquist stated he does not have a problem with the pool remaining as long as there is an <br /> understanding that the pool will be removed if structural coverage is over 15 percent. <br /> Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants also own Lots 42 and 43. <br /> Mrs. King stated those lots are the property of the City of Orono. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the Applicants would build a new residence if the ordinance is not amended. <br /> Mr. King stated they may elect not to build a new residence if the ordinance is not changed. <br /> Hawn stated the Planning Commission may want to place a time limit on when the pool should be <br /> removed if the Applicants choose to build a new residence and the ordinance is not amended. <br /> Mr. King stated Staff sent them a letter stating the pool would need to be removed at the time the <br /> existing house was demolished. <br /> Hawn stated that would be fine. <br /> Kluth stated the Applicants have one year to decide whether they want to construct the new residence. <br /> Lindquist pointed out if the ordinance is to be amended, it probably will not happen until January or <br /> February. <br /> Mr. King stated they understand that. Mr. King inquired whether an above ground pool would also <br /> be considered structural coverage. <br /> Mabusth stated it would be considered structural depending on the size of the pool. <br /> Hawn moved,Lindquist seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2727,Mary and <br /> Joe King, 142 Chevy Chase Drive,granting of a lot area variance,and granting of a conditional <br /> variance for accessory structure without a principal structure that would only be effective if the <br /> code is changed to no longer calculate pools and their patios as lot coverage,with the <br /> understanding the pool will be removed at the time the house is demolished if the ordinance is <br /> not amended. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> PAGE 24 <br />