My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-20-2001 Council Work SessionA
Orono
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets - Historical
>
1999-2016 Agenda Packets - work sessions
>
2001
>
12-20-2001 Council Work SessionA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 3:28:44 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 3:28:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Summiiry of Joint Council/Planning Commission Work Session 12/20/01 <br />l.ot Co^cmyc <br />1 . I1ic general consensus was that Utw piHils and pulios that have no elements higher than 6* above <br />grade should not be included in the calculation ol lot coverage by structures. Implemcnlalion of <br />Ihfai wUI require an amcndmenl of Ibc coning code. <br />2. 'Hierc was general agreement tliat a hardcov er limit for non-shorcland urciis deserv es a ch)scr took, <br />ilowcver. it is not clear whether the limit should be <>r some other percentage. StalTsln>uld <br />bring c.xumples of properties of v urious sizes with vuriims hardcover percentages back to the <br />Planning Commission for further consideration. One suggestion was to use a percentage of the <br />buildable araa. say 80'’ o. <br />■5. It was concluded that stmctural coverage calculations should include building protrusions more <br />than 6* above grade, i.e. not just the building fotitprint but the v ertical projection of any parts of the <br />building that are ntore than 6* aK^ve gn^ind. However, the outer 2* of rtiof overliangs shall OiU be <br />considered as lot cov erage. My interpretation of the discussion is that open decks with any portion <br />of railing above ft' will still be counted as lot coverage in their entirely. <br />tloinc Occapatioiis <br />Consensus was to priK*eed with the 15-iiem amendment that PC recommended in 1098 (Page I of <br />11/2/01 stall'memo), and incorpirrate the 4*item staff recommendation regarding non-resident <br />employees, with the fttllowing rev isions or exceptions: <br />a) Add a line item Utat addresses noise impacts arnl limit those impacts to 8:00 a.m - 7:00 p m. <br />b) Need further di.scussion on item 5 regarding lu>me in:cupatii>n in accesM>rv struetua*s (as written, <br />only allowed in rural /ones or with rural lot size...) <br />c) For item 6. need to define which "certain vehicles" arc allowed to be stored outside... <br />d) For item 7. establish a threshold number above which piirking of v ehicles asstKialed with the <br />home occupation must be screened. <br />c) For item 8. consider adding a weight limit for vehicles used in the business... <br />0 For item 1 1 . limit hours of operation to 8:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8:00 p.m. <br />g) For item 1 2, add a limit on the number of customers or clients that con be at tlic location at one <br />time. <br />h) For item 13. consider that the normal delivery vehicles such us UPS and FedEx should be <br />allowed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.