Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING � <br /> Tuesday,May 28,2013 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (3. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO—ACCESSORY USES AND STR UCTURES—ZONING <br /> ORDINANCEAMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> Gaffron stated in his mind pump houses and lock boxes are oriented to the lake and should be located <br /> close to the lake. <br /> Bremer commented it would also depend on the topography of the lot. <br /> Anderson noted the City has regulations on flagpoles and that she is not as influenced by the proximity to <br /> the lake. <br /> McMillan stated in her view the side setbacks are more important than the closeness to the lake. <br /> McMillan noted there are currently a number of flagpoles located in the 0-75 and some smaller ones are <br /> located on people's docks. <br /> Levang asked if it could become a visibility issue. <br /> Gaffron stated that could become a factor in certain situations. <br /> McMillan noted the side setbacks and height restrictions would help to some degree. <br /> Gaffron stated it could then read; one flagpole set back from a lot lines a distance of no less than and <br /> strike the language to be located X feet from the ordinary high water level. Section 28 should be changed <br /> to allow structures that are past the average lakeshore setback by specifically adding flagpoles and pump <br /> houses. <br /> Gaffron noted Ordinance Section 20 as reviewed on May 13`�'included five options for regulating"height <br /> of structures." As a result of that review, it became clear that the City Council was interested in <br /> continuing to regulate excess structure heights via the conditional use permit and/or variance processes, <br /> based on whether the structure in question was attached or detached to the principal structure. The draft <br /> language now establishes that attached features of a building would need a variance for any height <br /> increase above the standard permitted building height for that district and that freestanding detached <br /> structures would need a conditional use permit to extend up to 50 percent above the permitted height, but <br /> a height increase greater than 50 percent would require a variance. <br /> McMillan asked if the advantage of requiring a variance versus a conditional use permit would be that <br /> variances are harder to obtain. <br /> Gaffron stated a conditional use permit, if the standards are met, will typically be granted. The City has <br /> not established any standards for increasing the height except for requiring a conditional use permit that <br /> allows an increase in height. The City has historic language that talks about the process for doing it but <br /> not the reasons why. Gaffron stated it currently is not spelled out in the code so it would be a variance by <br /> default. If the City Council would like to require a variance before the higher height is allowed for a flag <br /> pole or other accessory structure, Staff would suggest that language be included. <br /> Mattick stated if the City Council wants to limit it to a certain height, it should be spelled out,which <br /> would help the City create a standard that can be enforced. Mattick recommended the City not create a <br /> process where either a conditional use permit or a variance is required depending on different levels. <br /> Page 4 of 18 <br />