My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-09-1992 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1992
>
03-09-1992 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2024 2:04:56 PM
Creation date
3/5/2024 2:02:41 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.
/
212
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
■ . .fp;v‘.h <br />i'fi-V'S"’-b^m; <br /><-♦ • <br />:t;tr^'5»-:v. <br />ik, <br />P#’v, <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1992 <br />AMENDMENT OF SHORELAND REGULATIONS - CONT. <br />Johnson asked about sections that refer to vegetation. <br />Gaffron noted that the current'y existing code doesn’t address this <br />Issue In any detai I . The proposed code wiI I expand upon that code, <br />addressing slope, screening, and clearcutting of lakeshore vs. <br />selective thinning. <br />Callahan reviewed that the proposec ordinance Is close to that <br />proposed by the DNR. He noted that staff supported the addition <br />of PRDs on lakeshore lots. He '*d not anticipate a problem with <br />the DNR In reviev»ing the ordinance. <br />Gaffron noted that the DNR had proposed a hardcover standard <br />allowing 25% of the lot area to be hardcovered. He stated that on <br />a narrow, deep lot this basically would allow all improvements <br />right up to the setback line which our current code discourages by <br />using more zones. He indicated that the Commit ee understands the <br />ordinance as It exists, and therefore they have decided to stay <br />with It. <br />Johnson felt the public <br />hardcover ordinance. <br />was still not well-versed in the current <br />Gaffron felt there were few advantages, other than simplicity of <br />calculation, with the DNR’s proposed regulations. <br />Gaffron reviewed that allowing PRDs within lakeshore development, <br />may In some situations result in more restrictive development than <br />the present code. He noted the proposed ordinance will be taken <br />to the Council for adoption at their February 24th meeting, and <br />assumed at that time, the subdivision morator i urn wou I d be canceled. <br />Johnson asked what the benefit of adopting the ordinance prior to <br />DNR review would be. <br />Callahan explained that Wayzata had adopted its ordinance last <br />September and submitted it to the DNR for review, and to date, they <br />have not received word from the DNR. Cal'ahan felt Orono should <br />adopt the ordinance as soon as possible so the moratorium could be <br />canceled. He felt the proposed ordinance was substantially in <br />conformance with the DNR. <br />Callahan felt this was basically a good ordinance, and felt that <br />other cities around the lake may also adopt portions of the <br />ordinance.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.