07-10-1989 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING JULY 10, 1989 ZONING FILE 31422 - BREITNER CONTINUED • It was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2661, approving the hardcover, lot width and lot area variances for Mr. and Mrs. David Breitner. Motion, Ayes =S, Nays =O, Motion passed. ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ORDINANCE Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron provided a synopsis of what the accessory structure ordinance would allow and disallow. He said that the 1000 s.f. footprint area would not include second stories, and would therefore allow for the construction of a 2 story garage with 1,000 s.f. for the first floor and 1,000 s.f. for the second floor. Tennis courts, paddocks, arenas and swimming pools that exceed 1,000 s.f in area would not be considered as oversize structures, but would be subject to principal structure setbacks and must be at least 30' from any lot line. Councilmember Goetten raised the question of covered tennis courts and pools. Gaffron replied that once a cover is placed over a tennis court or pool, it would then be classified as an oversized accessory structure under this amendment. Councilmember Nettles inquired about height restrictions. Gaffron answered that a variance would be required if an accessory structure was proposed to be taller than the principal • structure, or if it would be more than 30' in height. Councilmember Nettles then questioned a particular application involving a request for a two story accessory structure. Gaffron said that in this case, the applicant met the requirements of hardcover, and would meet the lot coverage standards. There is a 15% lot coverage for lots that are under 2 acres in area and in this case, the lot coverage would be 7 %. Councilmember Callahan questioned the number of times that this oversize accessory structure ordinance would have been used within the last three years? Gaffron replied that it would be have been used approximately 3 to 5 times per year. Planning Commission Representative Hanson questioned whether the standard square footage would be 1,000 or 1,040? Gaffron replied that after City staff discussed the aspect of using 1,040 s.f., the Building Inspector indicated that the Building Code treats structures over 1,000 s.f. different with regard to structural requirements for foundations. Staff felt if would be less problematic for applicants if the 1,000 s.f. standard was used, and this would outweigh the benefits of using the 1,040 s.f. Hanson disagreed. Gaffron noted that barns, greenhouses, and stables were no • longer exempt from the accessory structure standards. These items would be required to meet the oversized accessory structure standards. 7