05-28-2013 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 13, 2013 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 26 (8. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING STUDY – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, Continued) Mattick stated it would be hard to say. Printup stated with a list, the City is creating possible loopholes. Mattik stated the list, in his opinion, clarifies what is allowed and not designed to create loopholes. One of the things the Council should pay attention to is, once you start including items, you are better off defining those uses. Levang commented a flag pole could be one such item. Mattick stated the question becomes whether the City should go through the exercise of defining a flag pole or whether the City should simply say that no structure can exceed a certain height without a variance. Mattick noted as the City’s code stands now, flag poles are allowed up to a certain height. Levang commented monuments are another example. Gaffron stated some of the items that he would suggest be removed would be smokestacks and mechanical equipment. Smokestacks are typically associated with commercial buildings. Levang pointed out that the language also does not address items that move. Gaffron indicated a belfry would have movement and noise. Gaffron noted there were complaints regarding one of the churches in town because it had bells chiming on Sunday mornings. Mattick stated there are also a number of things that are similar but the City may not want them, and to describe them in a definition is difficult. Mattick indicated Staff has spent some time discussing whether definitions should not be used and simply say that things that take up this much square footage or meet a certain height restriction would be allowed. Staff elected not to go that route since it requires more staff time. Bremer asked what option in Section 20 Staff feels would work best. Gaffron indicated he likes the idea of a conditional use permit for the first 50 percent increase in height. Gaffron stated he does not feel it should just be allowed, which would leave out Items C and D and the first part Item E. For the next increase in height, arguably there should be no difference between that and the first 50 percent. McMillan noted some of the sporting structures are also mobile and can be placed in different locations. McMillan asked whether the City has received complaints regarding play equipment and barbecue pits. Gaffron stated a hockey rink can be annoying and the question becomes at what point do you say hockey rinks are not good but tennis courts are. Gaffron indicated it becomes impossible to create a definition for every possible use. A hockey rink can be permanent or not permanent and an above-ground pool could also not be permanent. Gaffron concurred that it is impossible to define every possible situation. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 05/28/2013 Approval of Council Minutes 05/13/2013 [Page 11 of 26]