My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-09-2023 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2023
>
10-09-2023 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2023 1:23:54 PM
Creation date
10/10/2023 1:18:29 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
229
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />September 25, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />neighbor indicating support of the revised plans. The proposed addition is four feet from the side property <br />line matching the existing setback of the current deck. The previous plan had a proposed setback of 8.2 <br />feet from the side property line. The revised plans decrease the overall height of the addition and have <br />pulled the massing away from the lake. The revised plans have also further reduced hardcover by 86 <br />square feet. The amended plans require variances from the average lakeshore setback, 75-foot setback, <br />hardcover, hardcover within the 75-foot setback and side yard setback, however the overall impact of the <br />addition from the lake has improved. Staff is supportive of the revised proposal due to the reduction in <br />massing with the proposed one-story addition and the revised footprint of the addition as it is consistent <br />with the existing deck and has overall less impact to the lake than the original proposal. Staff <br />recommends approval of the amended plans because they have removed the lakeside deck and maintained <br />the hardcover footprint and there are practical difficulties with the size of the lot. <br /> <br />Andrew Iverson, the applicant, thanked Council members for doing a site visit and said they had tried to <br />work within the recommendations and pulled back from some of the big dreams they had. The proposed <br />addition covers the existing deck which is 50 years old. <br /> <br />Johnson said he was concerned about the increase of structure in the setback. <br /> <br />Walsh stated there was practical difficulty because of the size of the lot. It would not be possible to allow <br />the height originally proposed, he added. <br /> <br />Veach moved, Johnson seconded, to adopt LA22-000064, 4448 North Shore Drive, Variances, <br />Resolution No. 7403. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />City Planner Oakden said coming to the end of summer the City is busy with permits and getting projects <br />done. They are working on six proposals and legal notices and have been doing trainings in the <br />department. <br /> <br />RECESS & RECONVENE <br />Mayor Walsh recessed the meeting at 7:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:25 p.m. <br />FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT <br /> <br />16. REDUCE DEBT LEVY REQUIREMENT SERIES 2014A – RESOLUTION NO. 7405 <br /> <br />Finance Director Olson said this action is a precursor to adopting the tax levy. According to law, the City <br />has to budget 105 percent of requirements for debt levy. At the end of a debt fund’s life there is always <br />money left over and the City can transfer the overage to the facilities fund levy. <br /> <br />Benson said she understands the City typically waits until a debt is retired before moving any overages. <br />This debt fund, she said, still has four or five years before it is paid off and she questions taking money <br />from a fund where there is still debt to support the Fire Department. It would seem, she said, that the Fire <br />Department cannot be funded without making these kinds of financial moves that have not been normal <br />practice for the City. This transfer would not be necessary if not for standing up that department. She said <br />she did not feel it is fiscally responsible to take money from a debt that still needs to be paid. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.