Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,Apri115,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated a person might want a setback if they are going to start sinking their 200-foot wells to <br /> make sure your neighbor's activities will not damage your geothermal wells. <br /> Gaffron stated the following changes have been made: <br /> Section 23. In 78-1433,which states the general height limitation for accessory buildin�s, added `and <br /> structures.' <br /> Section 24. Added `sport courts' to the Oversize Accessory Structure regulations in 78-1434. <br /> Section 25. Added the word `Exception:' to clarify the pertinent standard for detached garages <br /> streetward of the house on lakeshore lots. - <br /> Section 26. Adoption language. <br /> The Planning Commission should review each of the sections of the draft ordinance, especially those in <br /> which a there are suggested standards or options for discussion. The goal of this review is to determine <br /> whether additional changes are necessary requiring further Planning Commission consideration. Gaffron <br /> noted the City Attorney has not had an opportunity to review the language in depth. <br /> Questions the Planning Commission should consider include the following: <br /> -Are we missing any `customarily incidental' uses or structures that should be addressed? <br /> -Are the proposed standards for each item in the listing clear?adequate? complete? appropriate? <br /> -Is there anything we should remove from the lists of permitted accessory uses? <br /> Gaffron stated as a final note, one comment the Planning Commission made was that it may be helpful to <br /> have accessory structure setbacks listed at the end of each district in the table along with the principal <br /> structure setbacks. After working through all the variable setbacks that might apply to various accessory <br /> structures, Staff has concluded that such a table may be complex and confusing so it was decided not to <br /> do one. <br /> Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance,re-open the hearing for public <br /> comments, address the three questions raised by Staff, and if the ordinance is ready to forward to Council, <br /> take formal action to recommend adoption. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if it would be ready by the May work session. <br /> Gaffron stated they do not want to have an impact on people who do projects this summer. If it is <br /> discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting, it could still go to the City Council in May. <br /> Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not made tremendous changes to what was proposed <br /> tonight and merely made some tweaks. Leskinen indicated she would not be opposed to forwarding it to <br /> the City Council at this point since they can send it back to the Planning Commission if they want it <br /> discussed further. <br /> Gaffron noted this is the fourth time the Planning Commission has discussed this and that he would not be <br /> opposed to sending it forward to the City Council for their review. <br /> Page 24 of 26 <br />