Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 24, 1995 <br />(#6 * Mary & Gene Zulk Continued) <br />Goetten said a safe access is necessary but there is twice the amount of hajucover located <br />in the 75-250* K>ne than allowed. An option was to make changes allowing the applicant <br />to rcfigure the hardcover in ways that would allow it to meet the requirements. Zulk said <br />they had waited a long time for the porch and fed it is important. Goetten said it no new <br />net increues were made, then it would be satisfactory'. Zulk responded that there was <br />not much hardcover with a small sidewalk and elc\'ated parking area and had carefully <br />considered the porch and how it would fit into the lot and neighborhood. <br />Jabbour said Zulk should make the choice between decreasing the porch width 2* or <br />refiguring the hardcover to not exceed the maxiraum allowed Jabbour added that if Zulk <br />did not make the choice, someone else would do it for him Hurr said she would prefer a <br />reduction in the porch width while Goeteen would okay whatever would meet the <br />standard. <br />Jabbour commented that the Council as a body should commit to not diverting from the <br />policies. Concern was voiced over the trading of illegal non-conforming hardcover for <br />new structure, and trading possibly newly made non-structural hardcover to gain <br />structural hardcover. Hurr was concerned that the Council did not have a handle on the <br />driveway situation with no policies regarding ensuring newly installed driveways do not <br />exceed hardcover limits <br />Callahan moved, Hurr seconded, to approve Resolution #3585 on the condition that the <br />deck be limited to a size 48 s.f less than proposed Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />Callahan commented that the Council needs to control strurtural coverage, but not by <br />balancing hardcover. Zulk asked if this was to begin tonight with his application. Zulk <br />was informed that the policy has been in place and did not begin with this application. <br />Discussion was had on the inability to distinguish between legal and illegal non­ <br />conforming hardcover and structural/non-structural hardcover in the codes Callahan <br />said there were two policies in place. There is a policy on lot coverage, and there is a <br />policy that no hardcover is allowed within 75* of the lake, either structural or non- <br />structural. This hardcover, according to Callahaa should be removed under all <br />circumstances <br />Mabusth questioned if there w as enough area to support the structural or non-structural <br />hardcover, and if it does not exceed the hardcover percentages, would the City ask the <br />home owner to remove it Callahan again referred to the two policies If there was <br />illegal, non-structural hardcover, it should be removed Callahan said the Planning <br />Commission was not adhering to these policies citing how removal of plastic <br />underlavment, which should not be there in the first place, is counted as removal towards <br />the excess hardcover.