Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Moaday, Jaac 13,2005 <br />7:00 o’clock pja. <br />(0S>31 11 Water Street Hoaiee, Coatiaaed) <br />Gaffixm stated there are risks associated with granting a conditional use permit and tiut conditions can be <br />placed on the property to address any concerns die Council may have. Gaflron indicated a situation could <br />arise that die conditions do not addr^. <br />McMillan commented the enforcement of the conditional use permit would be another issue. <br />Murphy stated in his view it is a remaricable use of the property and that the applicants have taken great <br />steps to design it to fit the land. Murphy inquired how this structure could be redesigned so it would not <br />fall under the wetland moratorium. <br />Gaffron inquired whether the building could be shifted without having other major impacts on the site. <br />Carlson inquired what setback they would need to meet. <br />Gaffron stated the moratorium requires a 26-foot setback from the edge of the wetland. Gaffron indicated <br />the moratorium covers any wetland diat has been identified under the federal wetland delineations and <br />that any structure that is located within that 26-foot buffer would be affected by the moratorium. <br />Carlson stated the building would need to be redesigned if they are required to meet the 26-foot buffer. <br />Carlson stated the hardship in this case deals with the intent of the ordinances and why they are drafted <br />and that the ordinances do not address every situation. Carlson pointed out there is an outlot located in <br />the front and diat die entire square footage of the property should be counted. Carlson stated the outlot is <br />owned by the property owners and there is no sha^ access over the outlot. Carlson stated if the entire <br />amount of land owned by the applicants is taken into account, a variance would not be required, and that <br />the strict interpretation of the ordinance creates a hardship. <br />Carbon stated they are able to meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance by constructing two separate <br />structures, each consisting of 1200 square feet, which would not be as aesthetically pleasing as what is <br />being proposed. Carlson slated they have attempted to create an aesthetically pleasing structure that <br />would add vdue to die lot, limit the visual impact to the neighbors and to the property owner, and also <br />meet the spirit and intent of the code. Carlson agreed they would need to address the issue with the <br />wetlands. <br />Barrett stated he is in agreement with staff that the moratorium does apply to this property and that no <br />portion of the structure can be constructed within that 26-foot buffer while the moratorium is in effect. <br />Carlson inquired how long the moratorium is in effect. <br />Gaffron stated the moratorium expires in October but that the City would likely adopt stricter regulations <br />concerning wetlands once die moratorium is up. <br />Carlson stated they would be able to meet the 26-foot buffer by reducing the amount of square footage of <br />the stiucture. Carlson requested that they be allowed to submit a revised drawing that meets the 26-foot <br />PAGE 6