My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-10-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
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 3 of 18 <br /> <br />(3. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES – ZONING <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />Ordinance Section 26 has been further revised to include or remove certain definitions. The current <br />definition for an accessory use is not changing under the current draft. Accessory use or structure in <br />today’s existing definition is a use or a structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure <br />of the same lot customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. While it has been removed from <br />this section, it is already listed elsewhere in the code. Gaffron indicated when we talk about having a list <br />of accessory uses, one of the reasons the City is attempting to create a list of accessory uses is to provide <br />some clarity to what is intended by the code. Given the fact that Staff understands that the code as it <br />exists today can be interpreted in ways different than what has been intended, Staff is attempting with the <br />changes to make a code that is very clear for the public to understand. <br /> <br />After much consideration, Staff has concluded that the existing combined definition of “accessory use or <br />structure” is appropriate as opposed to separate definitions for “accessory use” and “accessory structure.” <br />Because the current code has multiple definitions, Staff has deleted the existing definition of “accessory <br />use,” not added a definition of “accessory structure,” retaining the existing definitions of “principal use” <br />and “secondary use.” Also added are the definitions of private recreational sporting facilities and private <br />recreational play facilities. <br /> <br />Ordinance Section 27 has been added to revise Shoreland Ordinance Section 78-1281 (Water-Oriented <br />Accessory Structures) to allow flagpoles and small pump houses (no greater than 20 square feet in area <br />and no higher than 48 inches in height) within the lakeshore setback. As drafted, flagpoles would have to <br />be set back from the ordinary high water level a distance that is yet to be determined as well as meet the <br />required principal structure side setback for the zoning district. Setbacks would be no less than the <br />principal structure setback. In a side yard in the one-half and one acre zones, it would be at least ten feet <br />from the side lot line; in the 2-acre zone, it would be a 30-foot side setback; and in a 5-acre zone it would <br />be a 50-foot side setback. <br /> <br />Ordinance Section 28 has also been added to review Shoreland Ordinance Section 78-1279 (placement of <br />structures on lots) to add flagpoles and pump houses to the short list of structures not required to meet the <br />average lakeshore setback requirements. Gaffron noted there are a number of existing pump houses <br />already in existence and the standards have been revised to match those of a lockbox. <br /> <br />Bremer asked why that specification should be included in Section 2 and not in Sections 1 or 3. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated both a pump house and a lock box are typically at the shoreline or close to the water. A <br />flagpole could be located close to the shore or elsewhere on the property. Gaffron asked if the Council <br />would prefer a specific distance from the shore be required for a flagpole. <br /> <br />Bremer stated she does not see the reason for a difference. <br /> <br />Gaffron asked if she is suggesting that there not be a standard for flagpoles in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> <br />Bremer stated if they were going to do that, then it would not be necessary for Items 1, 2, and 3, and that <br />she does not understand the philosophy for having a different distance for a flagpole. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 06/10/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/28/2013 [Page 3 of 18]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.