Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, May 28, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />   Page 7 of 18   <br /> <br />(3. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES – ZONING <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />Mattick stated the Planning Commission did spend a lot of time on the ordinance and attempted to <br />determine which items the City sees more often, such as sport courts, and it would make sense from that <br />aspect. Mattick indicated he has been attempting to work with Staff to develop a way to make it a little <br />more generic rather than spelling it out as a tennis court or a sport court. Mattick stated in his view it is <br />workable as it is but that he is more inclined to combine the two and that he does not see a strong reason <br />to distinguish between them. Mattick indicated he understands they are different to some degree but from <br />a functional standpoint they are very much the same. Mattick stated he would probably combine them <br />and perhaps refine what is listed a little bit more. <br /> <br />Mattick noted the section on detached accessory buildings and detached accessory structures will need to <br />be reworked. The reason that was included is buildings and structures are two defined terms and are <br />rather broad. The proposed language does not accomplish what the City would like to accomplish and <br />will need to be reworked. <br /> <br />McMillan indicated she is in agreement that it is too broad. McMillan noted that the City Attorney had <br />raised the point that it is redundant to say detached accessory buildings since all accessory buildings, by <br />definition, are detached. <br /> <br />Mattick stated accessory structures are supposed to be detached. <br />McMillan stated she likes detached private garage since it differentiates between the one that is attached <br />to a person’s house. <br /> <br />Bremer asked why it says private. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated historically in the code it talks about private simply to differentiate between someone who <br />might put in a facility that is used for commercial purposes. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated it is a defined term, and once you change it in this ordinance, you will have to change it <br />elsewhere. <br /> <br />McMillan indicated she is also fine with combining the two listings for private recreational sporting <br />facilities and private recreational play facilities. <br /> <br />Anderson asked if the detached accessory structure is more of a generic term than detached accessory <br />building so you can put recreational sports and recreational play under that particular subheading. <br /> <br />Mattick stated that was the idea but in his opinion it needs to be reworked since it is too broad. If you <br />truly look at the definition of a structure, just about everything can be defined as a structure. Mattick <br />stated in his view the language goes too far and will allow things that the City does not want. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if everyone is okay with the word temporary for roadside stands. <br /> <br />It was the consensus of the City Council that the word temporary is acceptable. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 06/10/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/28/2013 [Page 7 of 18]