Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD JUNE 17, 1991 <br />( #12)ZONING FILE #1657- SIMONDS CONTINUED <br />• size. <br />Bellows said, "My concern is that if we give in on this <br />request, for which there is not an extreme hardship, we are going <br />to be hard pressed to do this again. The Developer insisted on <br />constructing houses in this area that cannot realistically meet <br />the requirements. It is not the fault of the property owner." <br />Cohen and Moos concurred with Bellows. <br />It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Kelley, to recommend <br />that Council approve the applicant's request to construct a <br />driveway that varies from the Development Standards for the Sugar <br />Woods PRD. Motion, Ayes -3, Bellows, Moos and Cohen, Nay. Motion <br />failed. <br />OTHER <br />With regard to Council's recent action allowing the use of <br />non -woven fabric beneath landscaped areas, Kelley expressed <br />concern about the potential for an extreme scenario where someone <br />does excessive landscaping in the 0 -75 foot setback area. He <br />indicated that from what he has read, there is nothing that would <br />prohibit or limit the use of non -woven fabrics on the lakeshore. <br />Kelley suggested that Council may wish to better define the <br />extent in which the fabric can be used. <br />Johnson noted that soil is not 100% permeable, especially <br />clay soils. <br />Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission and Council would <br />like to have an ordinance which allows only a certain portion of <br />lakeshore area to be something other than grass. <br />Councilmember Jabbour stated that the 0 -75 foot setback area <br />should have nothing but grass. <br />The Planning Commission, and Councilmembers Goetten and <br />Jabbour agreed that further consideration should be given to this <br />issue. <br />( #13)PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - ATTACHED ANTENNAS <br />Mabusth explained to the Planning Commission that this item <br />had been referred back to them for further direction. She asked <br />the Planning Commission to consider whether the Ordinance <br />Amendment should be expanded to not only address antennas in the <br />B -6 and PUD Districts, but possibly those properties zoned <br />Residential that are not used for residential use. Mabusth cited <br />the watertower in Navarre as an example, noting that the proposed <br />Amendment would not allow an antenna to be attached to that <br />particular structure. <br />• - 13 - <br />