03-22-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13,2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. #17-3896 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: STRUCTURAL COVERAGE — ORDINANCE No. 187 — Continued - Barnhart stated whenever an applicant comes forward, Staff strongly encourages them to comply with the structural coverage limitation and that he does not know what would happen if it is removed completely. Barnhart stated his fear is that Orono will lose some of that distinction between Orono and some of the other lake communities. Walsh noted the City differentiates between two acre lots and lots that are less than two acres. Walsh stated if you have to start putting exceptions to a rule, you need to look at the rule. Walsh stated people with small lots have to choose between having a deck or a screened in porch and that people with two acre lots are allowed both. Walsh stated he has been talking for a couple of years that they need to treat everyone the same. Walsh stated on a small lot, the driveway will have that much bigger impact than if it is on a two acre lot. Walsh indicated he would like to give the smaller lots a little more flexibility. Walsh noted approximately 70 percent of the lots in Orono are less than two acres. Walsh indicated he is in favor of Option A since all the lots will then be treated the same. Printup noted Option B eliminates the decks from the structural coverage. Printup asked if this would become a nonissue if the decks are eliminated. Printup stated there would still be the structural component but the need for variances would become almost a nonissue. Printup stated he has a fear that if the structural coverage is removed altogether, someone could build out their house and later say they have issues with hardcover due to driveway and sidewalk issues. Walsh stated the City already deals with that. Walsh noted Staff already advises applicants to comply as much as possible with structural coverage and hardcover. Walsh stated the square footage is a bigger percentage of the lot on the smaller lots. Walsh indicated he could live with the 20 percent and eliminating the decks to provide some more flexibility. Walsh stated if the City is always granting exceptions to the rule, they need to look at the rule. Printup stated in his view decks should not be considered hardcover. Printup stated they talk about a deck that is 30 inches off the ground, and then how a handrail is required if it is over a certain height and how it becomes structural coverage, and then they talk about the rain not hitting the ground and so it is considered hardcover. Printup stated those types of conversations need to stop. Seals commented that is a topic for a different night. Seals stated if the Council went with Option B and altered it to say 20 percent, those changes would provide more flexibility for smaller lots. Printup noted Option B also eliminates decks and open structures, which would alleviate a lot of the requests the City hears. Walsh stated he could live with Option B if it is increased to 20 percent because it will give the smaller lots more flexibility. Page 24 of 32