Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, June 10, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />    Page 6 of 32   <br />(6. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING STUDY, ACCESSORY USES & STRUCTURES – <br />ORDINANCE & SUMMARY ORDINANCE, Continued) <br /> <br />Levang asked if the Planning Commission discussed the trash enclosure section and whether they are <br />okay with waiting on that section. <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated there was a minimal amount of discussion but that in his view they are not opposed to <br />that. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated that is an accurate description and concurred that Mike Gaffron has done an <br />outstanding job. <br /> <br />Bremer asked if there is a reason why elevator towers and HVAC systems do not have a height restriction <br />such as with the parapet walls. Bremer indicated she does not recall an issue with that coming up in the <br />past but that the Council perhaps should discuss that. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated typically HVAC equipment is located on the rooftop and that there are some screening <br />requirements currently in the commercial/industrial districts. Residential structures typically do not have <br />HVAC equipment on the roof unless it is a multi-family structure with a flat roof. <br /> <br />Bremer commented you typically do not see that but it is possible that someone would do that if they had <br />a narrow lot. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated depending on the size of the building, the typical commercial HVAC equipment is 10 to 12 <br />feet high and perhaps a lot less. Gaffron indicated he does not have a problem with incorporating some <br />type of height limit on it but that he would need to do some further research on it. <br /> <br />Loftus stated other communities go up to the height limit with elevator penthouses and then what they <br />have done is attempt to put a percentage of the roof area that it can take up. Loftus indicated she has seen <br />it limited to 25 percent of the roof area since it can start to take over the majority of the roof. <br /> <br />Bremer stated she is not suggesting that action on the ordinance amendment be delayed tonight but that it <br />is perhaps something the City could look at again in the future. <br /> <br />Bremer asked if the ordinance limits the number of flagpoles someone could have on their property. <br /> <br />McMillan stated it was her understanding it is limited to one. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Page 34, Section 27, limits it to one flagpole at a distance no less than the required <br />principal structure side yard setback for the zoning district and one pump house no greater than 20 square <br />feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. <br /> <br />Bremer stated she raised that point because she wanted the City Council to understand the number of <br />flagpoles was limited. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if she would prefer one for the entire lot or only one for the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> <br />Bremer indicated she would be fine with one flagpole in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda 06/24/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 06/10/2013 [Page 6 of 32]