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 5 of 18 <br /> <br />(3. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO – ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES – ZONING <br />ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> <br />McMillan asked if it would be a variance for both a freestanding structure and an attached structure. <br /> <br />Mattick recommended the Council just set it at a specific height for both. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the next question would be whether the City wants to list the things that a variance would <br />be granted for. <br /> <br />Mattick recommended the City not create a variance list. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted Items A and B identify a list of items, and if you want to go higher than 30 feet, a person <br />would need to go through the variance process. The intent is that everything has to meet the height <br />restrictions, and anything higher than that would require a variance, including church spires. <br /> <br />Mattick commented a lot of churches do not have the high spires anymore but there will be certain <br />districts where they are more common as an allowed use. Mattick stated he understands parapet walls but <br />that basically height is height. <br /> <br />Bremer noted historically Item C has been included and asked if that would be removed as well. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the City Council probably should take a close look at the list, which includes things that <br />are typically higher than your average structure, such as an elevator penthouse, HVAC or cooling towers, <br />and if there is a 30-foot height restriction, anything above that would require a variance. <br /> <br />Mattick stated you could either grant a variance or treat it as a non-encroachment within a specific zone. <br />The City currently does that with side setbacks. Mattick stated you should not really need a conditional <br />use permit for an elevator shaft. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Staff may want to draft something that allows those items at certain standards. <br /> <br />Bremer stated it would not be in that section. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the title of that section is height of structures but that Staff will need to look at that closer. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated as it relates to alternative energy systems, the draft ordinance adds “solar electric and solar <br />thermal systems” and “geothermal systems” to the list of allowed accessory uses within each zoning <br />district. As a complement to this, or as an alternative to including them in the list, the City Council may <br />want to, at some point, establish standards for such systems. The best option for accomplishing this may <br />be to establish a separate section under Article X – Supplementary Requirements and Restrictions; <br />Division 1, entitled Alternative Energy Systems. This section would define the various types of alternate <br />energy systems and incorporate a set of standards for each of the listed uses. Gaffron noted he has <br />attached some language from other cities in his memorandum. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 06/10/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 05/28/2013 [Page 5 of 18]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.