Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br />I <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 16.1999 <br />LR-1C or will they consider some change to the LR-1C-1, keeping attached housing as a viable <br />alternative. <br />Mabusth asked staff if this special section is needed because of the requirements made of a <br />developer under Section 10.56, Subd. 19, regulations for development of PRDs within the Shoreland <br />District. <br />Gaffron said Section 10.56 is the Shoreland Ordinance and the PRD regulations within Section 10.56 <br />would make It difficult to do a density that might be commensurate with the LR-1-C1 on a property <br />located directly on the shoreline because it requires “tiering* which acts to limit overall density. <br />Mabusth noted that the impervious surface standard is 50% for the total property and In the LR-1C-1 <br />district, It says that beyond 100 feet there shall be no more than 35% impervious surface. <br />Gaffron displayed a map showing the location of the property that would be affected by the <br />Shoreland District standards. <br />Mabusth asked If the Council specifically asked that the 50% density credit be removed. Gaffron said <br />yes. <br />McMillan asked for clarification of four attached units. <br />Gaffron said it would be a building having four separate dwellings in it with four separate entrances. <br />Mabusth asked If staff received any phone calls from the property owners on the north side of <br />Shoreline Drive. <br />Gaffron said he received one call. <br />White questioned Paragraph D. regarding the hardcover. <br />Gaffron said that paragraph has not been changed since 1975. He said the Commission could take <br />this opportunity to make it more consistent with the zoning in the rest of the City. It does conflict with <br />the Shoreland District ordinance and Orono’s hardcover ordinance which say that from 75-250* you <br />are allowed 25% hardcover. <br />Hawn said It would be good to remove the 50% credit, but she would like to keep the opportunity for <br />attached housing. <br />Mabusth concurred with Hawn. <br />McMillan asked about the duplex law. Gaffron explained the duplex law. <br />White said he wants to keep the provision for attached housing. <br />Hawn said it also permits the preservation of land area and limits hardcover. Hawn asked If the <br />Commission members are in favor of eliminating the 50% credit. <br />Mabusth said the Commission should follow the Council’s direction and eliminate the 50% credit in <br />the LR-1C-1. She thinks that attached dwellings would be allowed under other sections of the code. <br />She said certain sections of this code may be in conflict with Section 10.56 of the Shoreland <br />Ordinance. <br />Gaffron said that this code would be superseded by the Shoreland Ordinance in the areas that are <br />less than 1,000 feet from the lake. <br />Page 2