My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-27-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
06-27-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2016 9:39:09 AM
Creation date
12/16/2016 9:31:30 AM
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.
/
405
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 13, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 11 of 14 <br /> <br />12. #16-3815 HALF-STORY DEFINITION/MASSING REGULATION (continued) <br />Printup stated he likes the less restrictive nature of Option 1 and that what Council Member Walsh is <br />suggesting is almost entirely another separate conversation. Printup stated in his view this is a good start. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the biggest issue he has is with the structural footprint and that he would like to see that go <br />away. Walsh stated if someone has a 9,900 square foot lot, they can have 25 percent hardcover and they <br />should live within that. <br /> <br />Barnhart stated those are two separate issues and that the comments on what is included in the hardcover <br />and what is not is an appropriate discussion. Barnhart indicated he is uncomfortable with supporting a <br />change like that at this time because he is not sure what all the ramifications will be. Barnhart noted that <br />this has already been added to the November agenda for discussion and that he would like to keep it <br />separate from this discussion regarding the half-story. Barnhart stated he understands it was a two-year <br />process to establish the different hardcover tiers that the Council eventually approved and that he would <br />recommend keeping those two items separate. <br /> <br />Printup stated he thinks that is a good idea. <br /> <br />Walsh noted Option 2 gets rid of the 15 percent but establishes a floor area ratio. <br />Barnhart stated he would suggest, if the Council is looking for simplicity, to look at Option 1, and then <br />direct Staff to review the structural requirements sooner rather than later. <br /> <br />Walsh stated that makes sense and helps to resolve some things. Walsh stated in his view it should be a <br />continual process. <br /> <br />Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to direct Staff to draft an ordinance approving Option 1 <br />regarding massing regulations, and to request that Staff continue the discussion on the structural <br />coverage. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. <br /> <br />13. #16-3817 CITY OF ORONO/ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT: DEFINE <br />EXISTING GROUND LEVEL AND ENGINEERED GRADE – ORDINANCE NO. 170 <br /> <br />Barnhart stated the issue of “Existing Grade” was the 4th highest priority of ordinances to review last fall. <br />The City Code currently uses several terms interchangeably, including grade, ground level, and ground. <br />The proposed ordinance clarifies these terms by amending the definition of existing ground level, adds <br />new definitions of Engineered Grade and Natural Grade, and amends different sections of the ordinance <br />to maintain consistency in terms. <br /> <br />In addition, the height of buildings is based on the existing ground level. In situations where a house site <br />is based on a recently approved final plat or a grading conditional use permit, the existing ground level <br />has not yet been established. The proposed ordinance adds an Engineered Grade definition to address <br />those situations. That change would allow Staff to review permits before the grading work has been <br />completed. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted at their May meeting. No <br />public comments have been received for or against the proposed ordinance. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.