08-26-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 12,1996 (#5 - #2134 Robert Albrecht - Continued) Mitchell said the applicant is desirous of the deck and alluded to his letter written to the Council informing them of why the deck should be approved Mitchell noted the correlation between the two surveys, the width of the driveway, the nearby homes with sintilar decks, the approval of the neighbors, and the need for no additional variance and lessening of the burden of hardcover on the City and it's ordinance. Mitchell said the applicant did not grow up in the area and was unaware of the strict codes He also noted that the applicant was willing to make additional • oncessions and has agreed to reducing the size of the lakeside deck. fabbour asked what the difference was between this application and the previous application. Callahan noted that there was no additional hardcover proposed on the Karkela application or any reference to limiting the hardcover on the property on any past resolution as was present with this application. Mitchell commented that the total hardcover would show a reduction with this proposal. Callahan reported that the driveway was installed in 1991 for safety reasons. Mitchell deferred to the question of pavers versus asphalt and the past was between the City and another owner. Callahan informed Mitchell that this was the City's opportunity to correct mistakes made in the past. Mitchell did not see why this owner sho'tid bear the consequences of differences with a past owner Mitchell noted that the deck is located out of the lakeshore setback zone and the 0-7S' zone. Callahan responded that the applicant was in this particular situation because he failed to apply for a building permit, which would have allowed the City to inform him of the codes Callahan said he had a difficult time requiring a property owner to remove what has been built, but the rules were not followed and the 1991 Planning Commission recommended that no additional hardcover be allowed While agreeing that the property was overburdened, Mitchell said if the issue was hardcover within prohibited zones and no additional hardcover on the property, the deck is not in the protected zones and the.e is a net reduction of 20S s.f of hardcover. Callahan responded that the deck was still constructed against code and against past direction from the City in a resolution. Mitchell again alluded to the pavers approved in the subdivision of 1985 and how this accomplishes any reduction of hardcovei. Jabbour said the idea would be tracks of pavers rather than a continual block of pavers