Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE . <br /> � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri115,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> � Schoenzeit stated when he looks at the list,he does not see it as a detached structure but that he interprets <br /> it such that a feature of a principal structure could be at 150 percent. Schoenzeit stated he does not see <br /> anywhere that a second footprint would get that. <br /> Gaffron stated the existing language talks about height restrictions when applied to the following <br /> structures and kind of intimates that a church spire would be an accessory structure. <br /> Leskinen noted this is the accessory structure section. <br /> Gaffron asked if there is a comfort level the Planning Commission has as to whether they are attached to <br /> the house or not and whether it would be appropriate to have those structures at those heights. <br /> Schoerizeit stated the list includes features of the principal structure, such as a parapet wall. Schoenzeit <br /> asked if that would be a parapet wall of an accessory structure. <br /> Gaffron stated that would be a feature of the principal structure. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in the case of a freestanding observation tower,that would be okay. <br /> Leskinen stated the parapet wall would not exist on its own and would not apply in this section of code. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he reads it that parapet walls are an allowed use that can exceed principal building <br /> height. <br /> Gaffron stated a flag pole and water towers would be freestanding and that some are clearly additions to <br /> the top of a house. <br /> Leskinen asked if they are accessory uses if they are part of the principal structure. <br /> Gaffron indicated they would not be. Gaffron stated his point is whether Section 7813.66 is really talking <br /> about accessory structures or just structures in general that are limited in height. � <br /> Schoenzeit stated if you use the words structures and features,then you would cover both. Schoenzeit <br /> stated someone's house could have the structural capacity to put a 10,000 gallon tank on the roof and then <br /> use kinetic energy at night to drain out,which would be allowed. <br /> Gaffron indicated the options presented are conceptual changes from what is in the code and that Option <br /> 20A would require a conditional use permit for anything above 30 feet. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view Option D would be out. , <br /> Leskinen indicated she would be okay with Option C. <br /> Landgraver commented his observation tower could go up to 45 feet then under Option C without any <br /> additional approval. <br /> Gaffron agreed that would be allowed under this concept. <br /> Page 21 of 26 <br />