Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen asked which would be less risky and what unintended consequences would there be by not <br /> listing a specific recreational facility. <br /> Gaffron indicated the City has to rely on words such as similar or et cetera. <br /> Leskinen stated she would be more concerned with getting too detailed and that she would prefer to leave <br /> it a little broad. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view the language, "private recreational facilities which are for the convenience <br /> and use of the residents of the property and their guests"provides some leeway. <br /> Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would prefer a definition of private recreational facilities that <br /> would list certain allowed uses. Curtis stated an exhaustive list could be developed but at some point in <br /> the future there could be a new recreational facility that is not envisioned and would not be listed. <br /> Lemke commented he likes the phrase such as since it does provide some guidelines. <br /> Schoenzeit stated it is open to interpretation. <br /> Gaffron stated private recreational facilities could be included in the definition section or they could <br /> develop a short list with the term"and similar. <br /> Schoenzeit stated another word could be the practice of that sport. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. <br /> Lizz Levang, 4010 Bayside Road, questioned whether skate boarding should be limited. <br /> Gaffron noted some of the items listed have parameters for how big they can be or require certain <br /> setbacks. There is not a limit in size but there is a limit on location. The City has not attempted to place a <br /> limitation on size or location for hot tubs or spas.There are standards for fire rings. Outdoor kitchens and <br /> barbecue pits do not currently have standards. Gaffron stated things that could be defined as a structure <br /> will have some accessory structure setback standards. Larger items, such as tennis courts, do not qualify <br /> as oversized accessory structures since they are dealt with in a different section that deals specifically <br /> with those items. <br /> Schoenzeit noted you could have a 20-foot court for skateboarding that is quite large but did not go over <br /> 1,000 square feet so it did not hit a setback requirement. <br /> Berg commented barbecue smokers and outdoor kitchen areas are also becoming more popular and can be <br /> quite large. Berg stated in situations like that you need to look at the location of the item and the size of <br /> the lot. <br /> Schoenzeit commented there is also the issue of smoke that can be generated from those items. <br /> Levang noted there is also a property that is now going to have two swimming pools. Levang questioned <br /> whether there should be a limit on those types of items. <br /> Page 13 of 24 <br />