Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday March 13,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 13. #17-3894 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: NON-ENCROACHMENTS— <br /> ORDINANCE—Tabled—Continued- <br /> Printup stated it could read similar landscaping improvements. <br /> Crosby stated patios can be considered a landscaping improvement. <br /> Mattick stated he would like to look at that a little further. Mattick asked if the Council is talking about <br /> allowing retaining walls and planters and similar landscaping features but not have the language allow <br /> patios. <br /> Walsh noted they are only talking about the 0-5 foot range and that patios and decks usually require a <br /> 10-foot setback. <br /> Seals moved,Crosby seconded,to table Application No. 17-3894,City of Orono,Text Amendment: <br /> Non-Encroachments. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> 14. #17-3896 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: STRUCTURAL COVERAGE— <br /> ORDINANCE No. 187 <br /> Barnhart stated two ordinances were prepared and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their <br /> February meeting. This item was identified by the Process Review Committee as a priority. <br /> The first option reviewed was an ordinance to remove structural coverage and adds hardcover to the <br /> exempt portions of the shoreland area but it removes structural coverage as a maximum. The second draft <br /> ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission,does not change the structural coverage limit <br /> and leaves it at 15 percent. Barnhart stated basically the change is if it is a roofed structure six feet in <br /> height or over, it is counted as structural coverage. If it is less than six feet, it would not be counted. <br /> The Planning Commission was cautious about recommending changes to the structural coverage. The <br /> Planning Commission recognized the impact of massing and they were reluctant to make wholesale <br /> changes to that. Staff did prepare an ordinance that raised structural coverage from 15 percent to 20 <br /> percent but the Planning Commission did not recommend approval of that. <br /> Staff is looking for direction on one of the two ordinances. <br /> Seals stated she attended the Planning Commission meeting and that she would like the Council to talk <br /> about what the risk is in removing the structural coverage limit completely. Seals stated when she looked <br /> at Option B,she had a question about whether it would be enough to just change the structural coverage <br /> number. <br /> Barnhart stated in terms of the impacts from completely removing the structural coverage limit, he is not <br /> sure of the answer to that. Barnhart noted the structural coverage limit has been part of Orono's fabric for <br /> years and that it is most noticeable when you compare Orono's lake visibility to Mound or one of the <br /> other lake communities. Barnhart stated Orono's structural coverage limit has played a part in that,but to <br /> what extent he is not sure. <br /> Page 23 of 32 <br />