Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 22,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) <br /> Gaffron inquired whether Mabusth feels that lot coverage and hardcover are mutually exclusive, and <br /> even though you are allowed 15 percent,that does not automatically say you can have 70 percent <br /> hardcover. <br /> Mabusth stated if the setbacks cannot be met or there is structure located within the 0-75' setback, <br /> should the City allow two and a half story structures or massing of structure on the smaller lots. <br /> Mabusth commented she would like to discuss that issue in a work session. <br /> Kluth stated the philosophy behind the ordinance is to avoid massing on the lot. <br /> Rahn commented the City limits the footprint, which then encourages people to build up. <br /> Mabusth stated the City in the past has encouraged property owners to build up if they had hardcover <br /> constraints. <br /> Kluth stated the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to permit the infiltration of water. <br /> Hawn inquired how the Planning Commission felt about the hardcover at 35 percent. <br /> Kluth questioned why a number even needs to be set if everyone is currently in compliance. <br /> Mabusth stated that is her feeling also. Mabusth stated after seeing the analysis that was completed, she <br /> would withdraw her request for hardcover controls on rural lots that do not meet two acres. <br /> Kluth stated there are other controls in place for hardcover such as a maximum for the number of square <br /> feet that can be built. <br /> Mabusth commented that lots under two acres are also allowed 2,000 square feet of accessory <br /> structures. Mabusth stated she does not currently see that happening. <br /> Gaffron stated in his view he does not see the need for that limitation in the rural area at this point. <br /> Kluth stated the City should look at it from the perspective of massing. <br /> Hawn inquired what Staff would like the Planning Commission to do with this proposal. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff could draft an ordinance for review by the Planning Commission at their next <br /> meeting or schedule a work session where these issues can be discussed. <br /> Hawn stated she would like some guidance on the six-foot height on protrusions from structures. <br /> Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend Staff draft a sample ordinance for review at the <br /> next Planning Commission meeting,with a request that Staff obtain some guidance on the issue of <br /> the six-foot height limitation for protrusions from structures and the need for the limit. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> PAGE 11 <br />