02-16-1999 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 16, 1999 III Hawn stated that two letters were received from residents who were in favor of limiting the density. She said that the Commission members should consider whether they want to recommend a change. If they do recommend a change, will they recommend a change in which the zoning is reverted to LR- 1 C or will they consider some change to the LR-1 C-1, keeping attached housing as a viable alternative. Mabusth asked staff if this special section is needed because of the requirements made of a developer under Section 10.56, Subd. 19, regulations for development of PRDs within the Shoreland District. Gaffron said Section 10.56 is the Shoreland Ordinance and the PRD regulations within Section 10.56 would make it difficult to do a density that might be commensurate with the LR-1-C1 on a property located directly on the shoreline because it requires"tiering"which acts to limit overall density. Mabusth noted that the impervious surface standard is 50%for the total property and in the LR-1C-1 district, it says that beyond 100 feet there shall be no more than 35% impervious surface. Gaffron displayed a map showing the location of the property that would be affected by the Shoreland District standards. Mabusth asked if the Council specifically asked that the 50% density credit be removed. Gaffron said yes. McMillan asked for clarification of four attached units. • Gaffron said it would be a building having four separate dwellings in it with four separate entrances. Mabusth asked if staff received any phone calls from the property owners on the north side of Shoreline Drive. Gaffron said he received one call. White questioned Paragraph D. regarding the hardcover. Gaffron said that paragraph has not been changed since 1975. He said the Commission could take this opportunity to make it more consistent with the zoning in the rest of the City. It does conflict with the Shoreland District ordinance and Orono's hardcover ordinance which say that from 75'-250'you are allowed 25% hardcover. Hawn said it would be good to remove the 50% credit, but she would like to keep the opportunity for attached housing. Mabusth concurred with Hawn. McMillan asked about the duplex law. Gaffron explained the duplex law. White said he wants to keep the provision for attached housing. Hawn said it also permits the preservation of land area and limits hardcover. Hawn asked if the Commission members are in favor of eliminating the 50% credit. Mabusth said the Commission should follow the Council's direction and eliminate the 50% credit in the • LR-1 C-1. She thinks that attached dwellings would be allowed under other sections of the code. She said certain sections of this code may be in conflict with Section 10.56 of the Shoreland Ordinance. Page 2