Laserfiche WebLink
, � . <br /> � NIINZTrE5 OF THE ' <br /> ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING - <br /> Monday,3une 25,2012 <br /> ,A._ 7:00 o'clock p.m. . <br /> (3. #IO-3491 CITY OF ORONO-HARDCOVER REGULATIONS AMENDMENT, Continued) <br /> McMillan asked as it relates to the people who have been added to the overlay map,whether they would <br /> be given notice prior to adoption of the ordi.nance.. <br /> Gozola stated no special mailing has been sent out to those property owners but that the City can notify <br /> those residents. The parcels that have been identified as gaps are located on the outside portions of the <br /> current regulations and would fall into the least regulated tier. Of the three tiers that are being proposed, <br /> probably 100 percent of those additional pazcels fall into the 35 percent tier,which are not the parcels <br /> within Orono that generate hazdcover variance requests. <br /> McMillan commented that a notification is something the City should think about doing prior to adopting <br /> the new ordi.nance. <br /> Gozola stated as it relates to the ordinance language itself, Section 78-1 of the zoni.ng chapter includes <br /> various definitions such asFbuilding footprint,building coverage,hardcover3lot coverage, and permeable <br /> lin.ing. The definitions of li°uildi.ng footprint and building coyerage were simplified in the new ordinance. <br /> An example of building footprint would be the footpri.nt of one particular structure. Building coverage <br /> would be the total of all stcuctures. Lot coverage and the regulation of lot covera,ge was not a focus of <br /> this ordinance review and the City's existi.ng approach was not changed. The proposed definition of lot <br /> coverage was taken directly from the wording that is used in current Sections 78-825, and 78-1403. <br /> Adding this definition should not change how lot coverage has been regulated over the years. <br /> City Staff did recommend elimi.nating the proposed definition for buildi.ng coverage. The concem is that <br /> people looking for a definition of lot coverage might be confused with the defini�ion of buildi.ng coverage. <br /> Gozola sta.ted he would support elimi.nafiing that definition. � <br /> Rahn asked if the definition of buildi.ng coverage is similar to toda.y's structural coverage definition or <br /> whether that is different because decks over six feet aze considered structural coverage. <br /> Gozola stated typically that is defined as lot coverage which has now been defined with the new <br /> definition.As it relates to building coverage,they were attempting to describe multiple buildings on the <br /> lot. <br /> Gozola stated the new ordinance proposes some amendments to the e�sting defuution of hardcover. <br /> � Currently the existing definition says anything that does not allow water into the ground is considered <br /> hardcover. The new definition will exclude certai.n things such as permeable landscape fabric,the first <br /> 100 square feet of permeable patio or deck with pervious surface below,handicap ramps would be <br /> excluded provided fihere is permeable surface below it,and retaining walls would no longer count as <br /> hazdcover. <br /> "°�`� Bremer asked if that applies to items outside the 0-75 foot zone. 'a"' <br /> Gozola indicated it does. . <br /> Bremer commented she has a concem about retain.i.ng walls since people tend to use that as a generic term <br /> and install retai.ning walls that are not required but merely are for aesthetic purposes. Bremer stated the <br /> - City has regulated those in the past by counting them as hazdcover. <br /> . Page 3 of 15 � <br />