My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
02-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2018 11:00:40 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 2:25:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 25 of 26 <br /> <br />c. A “park model” 12-foot wide by 40-foot long, would not be allowed. Functionally, the ordinance <br /> eliminates the establishment of a manufactured home that is less than 20 feet wide for use as a <br /> dwelling. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted this item has again been published for a public hearing. Staff recommends holding the <br />hearing, taking any public comments that may be forthcoming, and then discuss whether the draft <br />ordinance language meets the goal and intent of establishing reasonable minimum dimensions and sizes <br />for dwellings. <br /> <br />Lemke asked what would happen in an octagon situation. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated at some point a definition of length or width will need to be created. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked if he has a house that is 100 feet wide on the lake but it is only 20 feet deep, if the <br />measurement would go the other direction or whether it would always be the longest direction. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if you have both standards in place, it should not matter because the standard is the same <br />whether it is length or width. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he would like to avoid the situation where someone comes in with a new definition that has <br />not been considered. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated using length as opposed to width and depth would help clarify it. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated there could also be a total number that has to be met. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated the question is whether the Planning Commission should address odd shaped structures <br />at this point. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit commented at some point those type of structures may require a variance. <br /> <br />Landgraver noted the goal of the Planning Commission was to establish a basic framework for minimum <br />dwelling sizes and that they knew they would not be able to address all situations. Landgraver concurred <br />the City would have the variance process to address the unique situations. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated to his recollection the other cities’ codes did not define length and width and that he is not <br />sure whether a definition could be crafted that works in every case. <br /> <br />McGrann stated in his view a uniquely shaped house will probably tend to be larger rather than smaller. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if Staff cares anything about the specs on the inside. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the building code would address that. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this item. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 <br />[Page 25 of 26]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.