Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOL1. r)F THE CITY COUNCIL <br />hI <br />5. Applicant has cited in an addendum included with the current <br />application; referenced as Exhibit A the following reasons why he <br />feels the hardcover scheduled for remc al_ must remain: <br />Appl ',_ant's builder advised that applicant could seek ar <br />of 'ie original conditions of the approving resolution <br />at sor• po. .t _n the future and that after he had lived in the <br />house :-jr a year he realized how essential those imprcvements <br />were _o `.he use and enjoyment of the house. <br />pplica•t had received all novices of the Planning Commission and <br />Council action after each meeting r_nd was filly aware of the <br />intent of the City regarding this application. Applicant had <br />signed off on the resolution agreeing to the removal of the <br />specific areas of tardcovrr <br />b) Applicant claims th_ 3uld create a safety hazard to <br />remc . e th, additional pave_ a adjacent to Shadywood Road and <br />)-hat it pruvides additional on -site parking. <br />The Cit;• has provided the applicant with a turn -around -)n his <br />rroperty, thereby eliminating the need to back out onto Shadywood <br />ad. Additional parking for visitors or guests can be provided <br />tt,_._n the grassed &yeas of the property. <br />c) Apt i ic-ant co itends t the detached garage is desparately <br />need 1 tr• storage and that it must remain. <br />)non ,g it would appear that the applicant entered irto an <br />Ent wish the Ci`y without any serious thought as to the <br />A-0ces. A larger, improved house and the detached garage <br />?create a cluttered and densely developed look in comparing <br />.,ant pattern cf ('evelopment: within the neighborhood. <br />? )p l i cant l aims ° he bulk -head door/storm door spelt r is <br />ne, _I for eme, ,c} a.•-esses to the house and for certain repair <br />n.!4 me.-i,.tenance ac#� vities. <br />Once again, this should have been ad1resacd with the original <br />review. There is interior access to the basement ar,_•, via the <br />princip•,i residence. <br />6. At the F,ianning Commissior meet nq of rebruary 16, 1988, the <br />Planning Commission voted unanimously Lo deny the current doplicatien <br />based on the following Linciings <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />