My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-10-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2013
>
06-10-2013 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 10:30:52 AM
Creation date
4/7/2015 1:52:12 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
315
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, May 28, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> Page 8 of 18 <br /> <br />(3. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES – ZONING <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />McMillan noted question five deals with whether the Council would like to establish a code section <br />defining and providing standards for alternative energy systems and whether certain systems, such as <br />wind energy, outdoor wood furnaces, etc., should be prohibited. McMillan stated she would like to see <br />that in a separate section so the Council can approve the rest of the ordinance and work on that section <br />later. <br /> <br />Mattick stated there are a number of good examples out there already and that the Council can decide <br />which ones they would like to allow and which ones should not be allowed. At the present time Orono <br />allows solar but it needs to be attached to the residence. The Council should address whether it would be <br />allowed detached from the house, which is becoming a little more popular depending on the topography <br />of the yard. <br /> <br />McMillan asked how everyone feels about trash enclosures. McMillan stated she is unsure whether the <br />City wants to start regulating those. <br /> <br />Mattick stated he has sat through this discussion before with other communities, and a number of people <br />are okay with entrance monuments but they require an encroachment agreement since they are located in <br />the City’s right-of-way. The idea behind that is no one really likes the big trash can sitting out by the road <br />so wouldn’t it be better enclosed. The problem with that is the structures would all look different and <br />would be a permanent structure in a high visibility area, which is one thing that should be considered. <br /> <br />Bremer asked what would stop someone from placing one ten feet from the lot line or the road. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated on a lakeshore lot you would need to meet a principal structure setback if it is not a <br />garage. <br /> <br />Bremer stated it would depend on where the lot is. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated at the present time the City does not allow any accessory structures between the house and <br />the street. At its last meeting the Planning Commission reviewed an application where there is an <br />existing shed about 20 feet off of the road and the house sits approximately 50 or 60 feet back from the <br />road. There was a question of whether or not it should be allowed to stay. <br /> <br />Bremer commented she can see that situation growing and that it becomes a slippery slope. <br /> <br />Levang indicated she likes the Brooklyn Park code relating to the recycling. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the fully screened requirement is probably the biggest difference between their code and <br />Orono’s. <br /> <br />Levang noted they also have some instructions limiting when trash can be placed out for collection. <br /> <br />Bremer commented the big green and yellow containers are also more obvious. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 06/10/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/28/2013 [Page 8 of 18]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.