Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 2. The City or an applicant may initiate an amendment to this ordinance to permit the particular <br /> use under consideration." <br /> The goal of this second review is to further consider the various accessory uses that have been identified <br /> as customarily incidental to a principal residential use,as organized into the three attached tables. Review <br /> and discuss the existing code sections that address or regulate those uses, as well as the examples of how <br /> they may be addressed in other cities. The Planning Commission should identify those uses that clearly <br /> should be added to the residential districts as accessory uses, and identify what standards should apply to <br /> each. The Planning Commission may wish to then consider putting those to the test using real-world <br /> examples. <br /> The next step will be for Staff to draft an ordinance amendment for discussion at the April 15 meeting. <br /> This draft would attempt to incorporate uses and pertinent standards into the appropriate code sections <br /> (zoning district Accessory Use lists, accessory use standards, non-encroachments section, etc.). <br /> Schoenzeit asked if an item is not on the list whether the applicant would be responsible to pay a fee or <br /> could they request the fee be waived. <br /> Gaffron indicated if someone were to make application for a code amendment currently, Staff would <br /> expect them to pay a$750 application fee. Typically they would be asking for something that the City <br /> probably has not seen in the past. <br /> Schoenzeit commented community gardens might be an example. <br /> Gaffron recommend the Planning Commission discuss the extremely common list of structures/uses and <br /> determine whether additional language or standards should be added to any of the accessory uses. <br /> Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission should decide first whether a structure/accessory use that is <br /> not listed should be allowed. Landgraver stated in his view the easier approach would be to determine if <br /> something is allowed rather than deferring it. <br /> Gaffron stated that is very logical and is probably a good approach. <br /> Leskinen stated the language that the applicant would have the right to appeal should also be included for <br /> those uses that are not permitted. <br /> Gaffron there are two appeal processes available. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the starting of this process is that the applicant is wasting their time if they do not <br /> come out with this clause that is part of the new code,that would be an important thing to know. <br /> Gaffron stated the first item on the chart is accessory detached buildings that are not garages, such as <br /> sheds,tool houses,workshops,pool cabanas, greenhouses, gazebos, detached covered decks, carports, <br /> etc. Gaffron noted it does not say structures and that the application just reviewed tonight was regarding <br /> a storage shed. Staff asked the City Attorney whether those would fall under the moratorium and it was <br /> the City Attorney's position that the City can issue those shed permits when they are ready because they <br /> are a different situation than it would be for anybody else. <br /> Page 8 of 24 <br />