Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 16,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3111 Water Street Homes,Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated the buried portions should be considered structure from a building code standpoint but that <br /> the visual impacts of the building are limited. Gaffron pointed out that the intent of the ordinance was not <br /> only to limit visual impacts but also to address or limit the uses associated with large structures. Staff <br /> concludes that the buried footprint of an accessory building should be considered as part of the footprint <br /> for purposes of the oversize accessory structure ordinance. Gaffron noted the applicant is proposing a car <br /> wash for the lower level and it is recommended that the car washing effluent not go to the septic site. <br /> Gaffron stated the future use of this structure and what types of limits should be placed on its future use <br /> should be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission. <br /> Carlson stated the property owner would like to construct an accessory building to accommodate his <br /> collectible cars. Carlson stated the goal in designing the accessory building was to come up with a plan <br /> that complied with the intent of the code and work within a footprint of 1600 feet, including the outlot. <br /> Carlson indicated the appearance of a garage with four stalls up and four stalls below was not acceptable <br /> and that the building was designed to be partially constructed below ground,which would make the <br /> structure less visible from the adjoining properties and would fit in with the rest of the community. <br /> Carlson stated a two-story structure could be constructed but would be more visible. <br /> Carlson pointed out the car wash is not intended to be a commercial car wash and is intended merely to <br /> provide the owner with an area to wash a car off with a hose periodically. <br /> Carlson stated the hardships relate to the location of the septic and the visual impact of an above-ground <br /> structure to the neighbors. Carlson stated their proposal makes good sense and does not create any <br /> hardcover issues. The property owner is aware that the accessory building is not intended for residential <br /> use and they are agreeable to having a covenant on the property prohibiting future residential use of the <br /> structure. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Rahn stated he does have a concern regarding the future use of this structure and noted that covenants stay <br /> with the property and not the owner. Rahn inquired whether the cars would be stored on the bottom level. <br /> Carlson stated the intent is to store the prized cars in the upper level. <br /> Gaffron stated a potential issue is the wetland moratorium that affects properties that are within 26 feet of <br /> a wetland. Gaffron stated the City's proposed wetland ordinance would require a 20-foot setback in <br /> addition to the 35-foot buffer for any structure. Gaffron inquired whether this structure could be set <br /> further back. <br /> Gaffron noted he would need to speak with the City Attorney on whether this structure and/or property <br /> would fall under the wetland moratorium. <br /> PAGE 23 <br />