My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
02-19-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:34:57 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:30:47 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
395
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).
View images
View plain text
MINMKSOKTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION <br />Tuc*>day, February 19, 2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />/.oiling code dealing with structural lot coxerage ordinance standards Mottenberg noted the Planning <br />Commission had discussed this item in a number of work sessions, and inquired whether there were any <br />changes or concerns b\ the Planning Comimssion relating to diis item <br />Kluth noted they were still working with the percentages <br />Hawn commented the last time the\ rexiewed this item the> discussed the fact that this proposed <br />amendment would aflect \er\ few pioperties but would require a large minibcr of properties to ha\e <br />hardcover calculations done Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Coniniission had <br />decided at that tune not to continue to pursue this item <br />Mabiisth stated that was her understanding as well <br />Kluth stated the PImining Coniniissioii did request StaITto draft the nuKlel ordinance <br />I lawn stated the ordinance dws not include anything about non-lakeshore lots and percentage of <br />liardcov cr on these lots <br />Sniith stated it was her understanding prxiis were to be included in the hardcover, which appaiently lias <br />changed since Uie last work session <br />Mabusth stated Smith is correct, noting that Smith and I.indqiiist were opposed to the ordinance since <br />swimming pwls were not included in the hardcover calculations, with the rest of the Planning <br />('oimmssion being in favor of the proposed amendment <br />I lawn indicated what she was referring to was her proposal tlut non-lakeshore pioperties. in an elTort to <br />insure that those lots did not have a large amount of hardcover on them, was to put a percentage limit on <br />those properties as well as lakcshore lots Hawn staled since then StalFs studv has demonstrated that a <br />limit on tliose lots is not needed at this lime <br />Rahil inquired whether the Plaiimng ('oimmssion should put a .'5 percent limit on the >(MM0(j(i' setback <br />area <br />.Mabusth commented Stall did a survev of non-lakeshore lots and found that it was not an issue <br />pa(;f2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.