02-28-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 14, 2005 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (II05-3072 Orono Schools) Murphy commented it is not the Council ’s purview to design signs and that the motion directs Staff to dral\ a resolution approving the monument sign with the sponsor panel. Muq:)hy noted this sign would not be constructed until the spring, which would give the school district time to work with Staff and also dclcnnine exactly how the sponsor panel would look. Fritzler stated the Planning Commission was under the impression that the sponsor panel would only be used to denote the chief sixm.sor of the sign and that the sponsor panel would not be changed on a monthly or other basis, which w'ould tend to make the sign more commercial. Sansevere stated in his view there should be a plaque in addition to the sponsor panel. Sanscverc stated in his opinion the school should have the opportunity to use the sponsor panel to help raise funds for various school projects. White stated in his view the sign would not be highly visible from Highway 12 and that the school has exercised good judgment in the past on what to display on the existing sign. Gaffron noted the motion is in favor of the sign us proposed, with the sponsor panel remaining, and no other conditions being imposed on the sponsor panel. Murphy suggested the City be given the right of administrative review if changes arc made to the sign. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION; Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6.#05-3079 NICOLE AND PETER THO.MAS, 1385 ORONO LANE - VARIA.NCE Pelcr Thomas, Applicant, and Jim Meisler, Applicant, were pre.sent. Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting variances in order to construct a 8' x 11’ landing/deck above the exi.sting mechanical equipment on the lakeside on the home. The properly is ItKated at 1385 Orono I^ne, with shoreline on two sides of the lot. Ciundlach noted a ha»'dcover variance is required to permit 10.79 percent hardcover withm the 0-75 ’ lake setback zone when 0 percent is allowed and 10.79 percent currently exists. The applicants have prtiposed removal of 100 .square feet of drivew ay w ithin the 0-75' zone to offset the proposed deck. Stall'found the proposal rea.sonable as the applicant is not proposing to increase the total amount of hardcover w ithin the 0-75 ’ setback /one and the hardships found under the 2001 hardcover variance remain unchanged. The Planning Commission had a tie vole of 3-3 on a motion to deny the reque.st. The Commissioners who voted to deny the variances felt that approval of a trade of non-structural hardcover for sU^ctural FACE 11