My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-20-2001 Council Work SessionA
Orono
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets - Historical
>
1999-2016 Agenda Packets - work sessions
>
2001
>
12-20-2001 Council Work SessionA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 3:28:44 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 3:28:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Summary of Joint Council/Plannine Commission Work Session 12/20/01 <br />Lot Co% eraae <br />I. Ilic general consensus was tha! low p<xils and puilios lhat have m> clcmcnis higher than 6* aht>ve <br />grade should not be included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. Impkmrntatiiin of <br />Ihii will require an ameudnirnl of the zoning code. <br />2. 'rherc was general agreement that a hardcover limit for mw-shoreland areas descr\ es a closer look. <br />However, it is not clear whether the limit should be 50®/« or some other percentage. Stall* should <br />bring e.xamples of pn>perties of various sizes with various liardcover percentages back to the <br />Planning Commission for further consideration. One suggestion was to use a percentage of the <br />buildable area, say 80%. <br />3. It was concluded that structural coverage calculations should include building protrusions more <br />than 6* above grade, i.e. not just the building hxMprint but the vertical pmjection ofany p;irts olthe <br />building that are more than 6‘ above ground. I low ever, the outer 2’ of nuif overhangs shall QiH be <br />considered as lot coverage. My interpretation of the discussion is that open decks w ith any portion <br />of railing above 6' w ill still be counted as lot coverage in their entirety. <br />Home Occupations <br />Con.sensus was to priKced with the 15-item amendment that PC recommended in 1998 (Page I of <br />11/201 stall* memo), and incorporate the 4-itcni slafl* recomnieiidalion regarding non-residcnl <br />employees, with the following revisions or e.xceptioiis: <br />a) Add a line item tliat addresses noise impacts and limit those impacts lo K:(M) a m - 7:iM) p m. <br />b) Need further discussion on item 5 Hoarding home iKcup;ition in access4>r> stnictures (as w ritten, <br />only allowed in rural zones or with rural lot size...) <br />c) l or item 6. need to define which **ccrtain vehicles’* are allowed to be stored outside... <br />d) For item 7. establish a threshold number aKne which parking of vehicles associated with the <br />home cKcupation must be screened. <br />e) For item 8. consider adding a weight limit for vehicles used in the business... <br />0 For item 11, limit hours of operation to 8:(X) a.m to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8.00 p.m. <br />g) For item 12, add a limit on the number of customers or clients that can be at the liKation at one <br />time. <br />h) For item 13, consider that the normal delivery vehicles such os UPS and Fedli.x should be <br />allowed.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.