Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#01-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment,Continued) <br /> Hawn commented the last time they reviewed this item they discussed the fact that this proposed <br /> amendment would affect very few properties but would require a large number of properties to have <br /> hardcover calculations done. Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had <br /> decided at that time not to continue to pursue this item. <br /> Mabusth stated that was her understanding as well. <br /> Kluth stated the Planning Commission did request Staff to draft the model ordinance. <br /> Hawn stated the ordinance does not include anything about non-lakeshore lots and percentage of <br /> hardcover on those lots. <br /> Smith stated it was her understanding pools were to be included in the hardcover,which apparently has <br /> changed since the last work session. <br /> Mabusth stated Smith is correct,noting that Smith and Lindquist were opposed to the ordinance since <br /> swimming pools were not included in the hardcover calculations, with the rest of the Planning <br /> Commission being in favor of the proposed amendment. <br /> Hawn indicated what she was referring to was her proposal that non-lakeshore properties, in an effort 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 lakeshore lots. Hawn stated since then Staff's study has demonstrated that a <br /> limit on those lots is not needed at this time. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission should suggest a 35 percent limit on properties outside <br /> the 500-1000' setback area. <br /> Mabusth commented Staff did a survey of non-lakeshore lots and found that it was not an issue. <br /> Rahn stated the only other comment he had regarding the ordinance is under Item#1,which reads"all <br /> roofed structures that extend more than 6' above grade level". Rahn stated he would like that to read <br /> all roofed structures more than 6' above grade level. Rahn stated in his opinion the word extend gives <br /> the impression of a horizontal extension rather than vertical. <br /> Hawn stated it is her understanding this is addressing structures that are cantilevered. <br /> Rahn stated he understood it related to structures over six feet in height. <br /> Gaffron stated he is in agreement with Rahn that the word extend is somewhat confusing and that the <br /> word extend could be eliminated without changing the meaning of the ordinance. <br /> Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2735,Proposed <br /> Amendment of Zoning Code, Section 10.03, Subd. 14,Lot Coverage by Structures Standards, <br /> with the words,which extend,being removed from Item#1 under Section 1. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Smith Opposed. <br /> PAGE 2 <br />