03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1101-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Hawn commented the last time they reviewed this item they discussed the fact that this proposed amendment would affect very few properties but would require a large number of properties to have hardcover calculations done. Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had decided at that time not to continue to pursue this item. Mabusth stated that was her understanding as well. Kluth stated the Platming Commission did request Stall to draft the model ordinance. Hawn stated the ordinance does not include anything about non-lakcshorc lots and percentage of hardcover on those lots. Smith stated it was her understanding pools were to be included in the hardcover, which apparently has changed since the last work session. Mabusth stated Smith is correct, noting that Smith and Lindquist were opposed to the ordinance since swimming pools were not included in the hardcover calculations, with the rest of the Planning Commission being in favor of the proposed amendment. Hawn indicated what she was referring to was her proposal that non-Iakcshore properties, in an effort to insure that those lots did not have a large amount of hardcover on them, was to put a percentage limit on those properties as well as lakeshore lots. Hawn stated since then Staff s study has demonstrated that a limit on those lots is not needed at this time. Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission should suggest a 35 percent limit on properties outside the 500-1000’ setback area. Mabusth commented Staff did a sur\ ey of non-lakcshorc lots and found that it was not an issue. Rahn stated the only other comment he had regarding the ordinance is under Item #1. which reads “all roofed structures that extend more than 6’ above grade level". Rahn stated he would like that to read all roofed structures more than 6’ above grade level. Rahn staled in his opinion the word extend gives the impression of a horizontal e.xtcnsion rather than vertical. Hawn stated it is her understanding this is addressing structures that are cantilevered. Rahn stated he understood it related to structures over sLx feel in height. Gaffron stated he is in agreement with Rahn that the word extend is somewhat confusing and that the w ord extend could be eliminated w ithout changing the meaning of the ordinance. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2735, Proposed Amendment of Zoning Code, Section 10.03, Subd. 14, Lot Coverage by Structures Standards, with the words, wrhkh extend, being removed from Item #1 under Section 1. V’OTE: Ayes 5, Nays I. Smith Opposed. PAGE 2