Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 22,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) <br /> Hawn noted she had to leave the work session early and is not aware of what the conclusion was <br /> regarding the six-foot building protrusions. Hawn stated it was her understanding when she left the <br /> discussion was regarding any protrusion regardless of height. <br /> Mabusth stated it was her understanding it was higher. Mabusth stated she recalls eight feet. <br /> Gaffron stated he only recalls discussing six feet. <br /> Weinberger stated there was some discussion over counting building protrusions over six feet, which are <br /> currently not in the ordinance. <br /> Mabusth concurred with Weinberger's recollection of the work session. <br /> Gaffron stated decks over six feet have always been included in the calculation. <br /> Hawn inquired why six feet and not three feet. <br /> Gaffron stated that was a decision reached back in 1989 or 1990, and he is unsure of what the rationale <br /> was for the six feet height. Gaffron stated most small sheds tend to be six feet in height and were <br /> considered to have a visual impact,with anything below that not considered to have a visual impact. <br /> Gaffron noted the maximum height of a fence is also six feet. <br /> Hawn questioned whether something that protrudes out from a residence four feet would be considered <br /> structural. <br /> Gaffron stated what Hawn is talking about is called a wing wall that sticks out to screen the side of a <br /> deck. <br /> Mabusth stated a bay would be considered because it is higher than six feet. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view bay windows should normally be considered as part of lot coverage. <br /> Gaffron indicated he is unsure whether a wing wall should be included in the lot coverage. <br /> Hawn stated it is her sense that this issue was not thoroughly discussed at the work session, and <br /> recommended the Council discuss this aspect specifically and whether there should be this six foot <br /> exception. <br /> Kluth stated the intent of the ordinance for structural coverage is for massing or aesthetic reasons,and <br /> suggested it be reduced to zero. <br /> Mabusth stated Weinberger's comment in the first application regarding lot coverage was right on target <br /> concerning a few of the applications dealing with structural coverage,hardcover, and setbacks on new <br /> construction. Mabusth stated perhaps the Planning Commission should review some of those limited <br /> lots and whether they should be given 15 percent structural coverage when they cannot meet the 0-75' <br /> setback. <br /> PAGE 10 <br />