Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 2S, 1995 <br />(#4 - #2033 Donald & Arlene KicUcy - Continued) <br />Hurr said the back up area calculated at about 36' was more than was ne^ed in order lo <br />back up safely and proceed forward unto CoRd 19. Hurr suggested th*; excess of 140 s.f. <br />of hardcover could be reduced in this area so that hardcover would not be increased. The <br />appUcant said there is no parking allowed on CoRd 19, and this driveway area is used for <br />parking and for turnaround. Jabbour and Goetten concurred with the problems of <br />parking Hurt said she would still like to see more concessions done to reduce the 140 <br />s.f of hardcover. <br />Jabbour moved, Hurr seconded, lO approve the amended proposal provided applicant <br />move the garage out of the right-of-way and work with Staff to reduce the hardcover by <br />140 s.f <br />Kelley noted that if the garage was moved and found to no longer be structurally sound, <br />the applicant would not be able to rebuild it. The approval as noted above was amended <br />to include the garage would not be allowed to be rebuilt if found to be structurally <br />unsound after it was moved. <br />Kelley also commented on the hardcover removal on the north side of the residence. He <br />is concerned that it will reappear at some point Kelley noted that it is human nature to <br />revert back to the norm. It was suggested the applicant work with Stall on a grading <br />plan to correct any drainage problem along the north side <br />Callahan questioned whether general terms should be used in the resolution. Mabusth <br />said the resolution will be brought back before the Council in final form for approval and <br />to consider present approval as conceptual. <br />Mabusth asked Jabbour il approval was given for either the removal of part of the garage <br />or its entirety Roelofs asked it as part of the construction process, the garage could not <br />be moved after either the footing inspection or the framing process <br />Kelley questioned if the garage was attached to the other garage, if it would be in excess <br />of the allowable accessory structure square footage The garage will not be attached to <br />the other but still will not meet the separation requirement and will require a fire wall. <br />Kelley said other variances might be required with this change and felt the application <br />should be tabled to see it in its final form Callahan said the hardcover calculations at this <br />time are unknown. <br />Ayes 3. Hurr, Goetten. Jabbour, Nays 2. Callahan. Kelley, who said not enou^ <br />intbrmation was known at this time and needed to see the application in final form <br />Hurt asked that the application be seen at the ne.xt meeting later in the agenda so that she <br />would have an opportunity to participate in the consideration of the application.