Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> issue of determining if it is allowed and should there be a separate set of performance standards for each <br /> and every one of those structures. The easy way to approach it is to say yes, but once you start to <br /> examine what happens with an accessory use or structure,you will find that there are different <br /> circumstances for each item. As an example,basketball hoops tend to get pushed to the edge of the <br /> property. In addition,there are certain accessory structures that are not listed within the City's <br /> regulations. <br /> Mattick stated one of the directions for the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission tonight is to start <br /> thinking about those items. Mattick suggested the Planning Commission start with the concept of <br /> accessory structures and then performance standards associated with them in terms of where they should <br /> be located. Mattick stated it is a balance of where you should be able to place these items on your <br /> property and how they should be regulated. <br /> Mattick noted one of the reasons the moratorium was put in place was to allow Staff to make sure that <br /> accessory structures are customarily incidental. If someone comes up to a properly,they should be able <br /> to say that the accessory structure has not swallowed the pr.incipal structure. Mattick stated the Planning <br /> Commission may want to examine whether the number of accessory structures should be limited or how <br /> big they should be able to be. <br /> Gaffron stated once you get into some of the rural zones,there are allowances for barns that could be <br /> much bigger than the house. <br /> Mattick stated for a barn that may make sense but for other structures it doesn't. The question is how <br /> much does the City want to regulate and make sure that those accessory structures seem like accessory <br /> structures. <br /> Landgraver stated one of the objectives appears to be for the Planning Commission to define what it is, <br /> where it is located, and possibly the size. <br /> Mattick stated as it relates to performance standards,the primary issues would be height, location, <br /> massing, setbacks, and the number of structures <br /> Berg commented it would probably depend on the size of the lot as well. <br /> Schoenzeit commented windmills are also one example of an accessory structure that should be given <br /> some consideration. <br /> Mattick noted on the smaller lots the hardcover regulations would come into play. <br /> Gaffron stated the list for RR-lA talks about private garages and parking spaces but does not say anything <br /> about accessory buildings that are not garages. The City's regulations currently do not specifically list all <br /> those things that are not garages and it probably should. <br /> Landgraver stated swing sets are also another item that have become larger over the years. <br /> Gaffron stated a number of city codes have an item defined as recreational equipment,which is something <br /> that Orono currently does not have. <br /> Page 21 of 23 <br />