03-22-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13,2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 13. #17-3894 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: NON -ENCROACHMENTS — ORDINANCE — Tabled — Continued - Printup stated it could read similar landscaping improvements. Crosby stated patios can be considered a landscaping improvement. Mattick stated he would like to look at that a little further. Mattick asked if the Council is talking about allowing retaining walls and planters and similar landscaping features but not have the language allow patios. Walsh noted they are only talking about the 0-5 foot range and that patios and decks usually require a 10 -foot setback. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to table Application No. 17-3894, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Non -Encroachments. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14. #17-3896 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: STRUCTURAL COVERAGE — ORDINANCE No. 187 Barnhart stated two ordinances were prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their February meeting. This item was identified by the Process Review Committee as a priority. The first option reviewed was an ordinance to remove structural coverage and adds hardcover to the exempt portions of the shoreland area but it removes structural coverage as a maximum. The second draft ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission, does not change the structural coverage limit and leaves it at 15 percent. Barnhart stated basically the change is if it is a roofed structure six feet in height or over, it is counted as structural coverage. If it is less than six feet, it would not be counted. The Planning Commission was cautious about recommending changes to the structural coverage. The Planning Commission recognized the impact of massing and they were reluctant to make wholesale changes to that. Staff did prepare an ordinance that raised structural coverage from 15 percent to 20 percent but the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of that. Staff is looking for direction on one of the two ordinances. Seals stated she attended the Planning Commission meeting and that she would like the Council to talk about what the risk is in removing the structural coverage limit completely. Seals stated when she looked at Option B, she had a question about whether it would be enough to just change the structural coverage number. Barnhart stated in terms of the impacts from completely removing the structural coverage limit, he is not sure of the answer to that. Barnhart noted the structural coverage limit has been part of Orono's fabric for years and that it is most noticeable when you compare Orono's lake visibility to Mound or one of the other lake communities. Barnhart stated Orono's structural coverage limit has played a part in that, but to what extent he is not sure. Page 23 of 32