COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
February 6, 2002
(Originally scheduled for January 31, 2002. Postponed due to stormy weather.)
Members Present: Jean Dellert, Acting Chair
Members Absent: Allie Vigue
Also Present: Rich Rothe, Consultant to the Committee
Jeffrey Hinderliter, CEO/Planner
1.) 6:13 PM, Meeting called to order by Acting Chair Dellert.
2.) Acting Chair Dellert dispensed with Roll Call
3.) James Montell made a motion to accept the minutes of January 16, 2002. Dorothy Washburne seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor, 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Dorothy Washburne asked to address some Old Business first. She asked to revisit the Dimensional Requirements for the Resource Protection District. She said the waterfront areas have not changed much in 100 years. The current standards allow for a building to be 35 in height. She was concerned that there might be pressure to develop some river front areas in the future and some types of development might degrade the beauty of the river as currently exists, especially if the building is high. Committee members discussed what is on the riverfront currently.
Jeff Hinderliter, CEO/Planner indicated that due to the topography (being mostly very steep), most areas wouldn t meet the Shoreland standards for development. State standards for Shoreland Zoning and Resource Protection are very restrictive. He said that existing homes are allowed to expand up to 30% of the square footage and volume of the existing structure over the lifetime of the structure providing it doesn t become more non-conforming. Vegetative Cutting Standards are very restrictive and pretty much do not allow cutting. The State is currently working on the Shoreland requirements.
Dorothy said that she would like to see more restrictive standards for building in the Resource Protection District. Jeff said they could be more restrictive as long as the restrictions don t infract on people s rights.
4.) The Committee discussed the proposed Rural Dimensional Standards Point Chart. Rich Rothe said if they were uncomfortable with the point chart, they can achieve the same thing by increasing the required lot size. They discussed options.
Jeff Hinderliter suggested that they could use the point system in the Shoreland and Resource Protection Districts to help keep the height down.
Jeff discussed cluster development. He said they could look at some creativity with respect to the Rural Residential District. An example would be to set a standard and put a footnote on it to allow a reduction in lot size if it were a cluster type planned development. The lots would be smaller, but there would be more open space and there would be similarities in the architecture.
Rich gave an example: the lot size could be 2 acres or 80 S.F. with a requirement of 200 frontage along the road or the size could be reduced if the owner used a more creative approach such as cluster development.
The Committee revised the Dimensional Requirements Table for Rural Residential (2.10) and dropped the Rural Residential Point Chart. They indicated that the point system might be more beneficial in the Shoreland and Resource Protection Districts. Rich and Jeff will work on this with consideration of the State s development of new standards.
5.) F. District Uses
The Committee reviewed additional permitted uses developed by Rich Rothe as discussed previously by the Committee.
Alternative Tower Structure The members discussed ideas for allowing towers in more areas by creative camouflaging in structures such as a church belfry, etc. They changed the name to Alternative Communications Facility tower structure within an existing structure.
They also reviewed and make decisions on the following new categories: Flea Market, Garage/Yard Sales; Individual Private Campsite; Outdoor Storage Facility; Public Utility Facility. (see the administrative record for initial determinations) The Committee expressed the need for a category Self Storage . They also asked for definitions for warehouse & storage and outdoor storage. They decided to break down the Public Utility Facility into two categories by size.
6.) The Committee will review the proposed Performance Standards at the next meeting. Committee not able, due to time, to review proposed Performance Standards.
7.) Other Business
° Next Meeting
The next meeting date was set for Wednesday, February 20, 2002, 6:00 PM.
Rich Rothe will provide the members with pictures of mobile homes and modular homes for the next meeting.
Dorothy Washburne made a motion to adjourn. It was seconded by Jean Dellert.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 8:16 PM .