Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 22, 1989 <br />ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONTINUED • <br />pending. <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron said <br />that staff has been reviewing the Planning Commission draft in an <br />attempt to find any loopholes that may exist. The Building <br />Inspector has indicated that the 1,040 s.f. limit may cause <br />conflicts with the building code. The main reason the Planning <br />Commission chose 1,040 s.f. is that would allow for a 26' x 40' <br />structure which is a standard size. However, staff would prefer <br />to use 1,000 s.f. as the limit to avoid any conflict with <br />building code thresholds. Gaffron said that staff was <br />contemplating whether placing a limitation on the number of <br />stories of an accessory structure would also be appropriate. <br />Mayor Grabek questioned whether the amendment would prohibit <br />a 5 -acre property to have a rambler -style residence and a barn. <br />Gaffron clarified that a horse barn was excluded from the 30' <br />height restriction in the existing code. <br />Councilmember Goetten said that the Council was always <br />cautious when attempting something new. She believed that this <br />amendment was necessary. <br />Gaffron depicted some potential situations that may arise <br />using "generic" lots to show the Council how the amendment will • <br />be utilized. Goetten said that she was especially concerned <br />about the smaller lots and the lakeshore lots. <br />Councilmember Peterson asked for clarification regarding <br />buildings with a footprint under 120 s.f. as being excluded from <br />the calculation of total accessory structure footprint areas. <br />Gaffron replied that it was the Planning Commission's intention <br />to allow residents to have storage for items, rather than having <br />them out in the open. Peterson asked whether a person would be <br />able to have as many sheds as he /she desired? Gaffron indicated <br />that the Planning Commission did not wish to limit the number of <br />accessory structures. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted also <br />that building permits were not required for such small <br />structures; only zoning reviews were required to assure that the <br />structures conform to the setbacks. <br />Mayor Grabek questioned whether staff was comfortable with <br />the proposed amendment? Mabusth and Gaffron concurred that some <br />"fine- tuning" still needed to be done. <br />Councilmember Goetten indicated that the proposal was a good <br />start and asked staff to convey that to the Planning Commission. <br />It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmember <br />Nettles, to table this item. Motion, Ayes =4, Nays =O, Motion <br />passed. is <br />