11-27-1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. RFGULAR PIEETING OF THE ORONO COUTICTL, rdO�TEr1BER 27, 1979 Page 19 Thus , I have added statements of purpose and nolicy FENCE ORDINANCE to these sections and additional standards or (Continued) conditions f_or installation of taller fences and/or walls. On close exar.mination, I think that you will find these standards tight, yet reasonable. Thev are workable from an administrative viewpoint. I welcome discussion about reasons for the standards as written and/or additional changes to specific performance standard circurnstances. I flat out recommend against going the strict variance/ conditional use permit route as beinc� unnecessarV and wasteful of the tir.le and resources of all of us . I currently plan to have the public hearing scheduled for the Planning Cor.ir_iission' s Decernber 10 , 1979 meeting. Council Meeting - November 27, 1979 Jabriel Gabbour, Planning Corunission rmertber, �aas present. He stated that his opinion �aas that the proposed ordinance was too restrictive. Alan Olson, Cit�� Planner, entered into the record ACCFSSORY BUILDINGS the following concerning accessory buildinc�s dated Plovember 21, 1979 , which states: After discussion at the Joint Planninq Corlmission/ Council meeting on Plovember 17, 1979 , and several rerminders from the Council bef_ore that, I believe that now is the time to make some sir_mple armend- ments to the accessorv building sections of the zoning code. A public hearing is scheduled For the Planning Commission' s Decer.iber 10, 1979 meeting right after the hearing on the fence ordinance. Section 31. 300 is quite permissi�Te now with no restriction on the number of accessorv huildings (except by hardcover) ; no story restriction on height; and no area restriction except 1, 000 sc�. ft. which is equivalent to a 20' X 50 ' buildinc� or a five-car garage. I suggest that the intent of the comprehensive nlan and zoning code can hetter be achievecl if the size, height, and nurmber of accessorv build- ings are more closely related to the size of each lot and the densitv of the neic�hborhood. ��7e are after all a rural/urban Citv and the need5 of rural residents is far different than the capacity of urban lots to support nurierous accessory buildinc�s. (Continued)