Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Moadty, Novcnbcr 14,2005 <br />7:M o’clock pjn. <br />(#05>3142 ChapmUy CoDtiniied) <br />Gundloch stated the application does meet the intent of the code and does not propose any new hardcover, <br />wid) all sedMcks being met except for the setback from the front property line. Gundlach stated this <br />application was submitted prior to the City’s new wetland ordinance taking effect, but noted that the <br />applicant is in compliance with the new rules. <br />The Planning Commission, on a motion to deny, voted 4-1, with the dissenting commissioner stating <br />support for a 10’ by 10’ shed pending removal of equal amounts of hardcover. The main issue discussed <br />during the public hearing was the trading of nonstructural hardcover for structural hardcover and the issue <br />of die applicant wanting to install stcppingstones rather than a full paved sidewalk. <br />Gundlach stated the minimum standard for a sidewalk width is two feet. The applicants would like to <br />install steppingstones, which total 22.S square feet and account for a reduction of 97.S square feet of <br />existing sidewalk hardcover. Based on the length of sidewalk, if constructed to the minimum width of <br />two feet, the sidewalk hardcover would equal SI .5 square feet or account for a reduction of 68.S feet of <br />existing sidewalk hardcover. <br />Chapman stated the two>foot sidewalk would allow a shed consisting of 118.S square feet in area or <br />qtproximately 10 by 12’. <br />Staff recommends that the Council discuss the policies of trading non-structural hardcover for structural <br />hardcover and weigh that discussion against the reasonableness of the request. <br />Sansevere inquired whether the applicant has seen Staffs recommendation. <br />Chapman stated he has reviewed Staffs report <br />Sansevere inquired whether die applicant is okay with the secrnid recommendation. <br />Chapman stated he is okay with the recommendation. Chapman indicated he has recently found out that <br />the front of his yard is really defined as the front lot line rad that the City owns the strip of property going <br />to the lake. <br />vcre staled he would be willing to go along with recommendation two. <br />White indicated he also concurs with recommendation two. <br />Chapman stated he is thrilled to live in this area and has paid a substantial amount of money for the <br />property and that he would like to place one 12’ by 12’ shed on the lot, which in his opinion is reasonable. <br />Murphy inquired why the applicant did not consider adding onto the residence. <br />Chapman stated they did consider that but that the shed would acc <br />space than a third s^ on die garage. <br />ijiiiil i.ilate their needs and take up less <br />Paged <br />1 <br />I