Laserfiche WebLink
C'it.vy, of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. <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 removal must remain: <br />a) Applicant's builder advised that applicant could seek an <br />amendment of the original conditions of the approving resolution <br />at some point in the future and that after he had lived in the <br />house for a year he realized how essential those improvements <br />were to the use and enjoyment of the house. <br />Applicant had received all notices of the Planning Commission and <br />Council action after each meeting and was fully aware of the <br />intent of the City regarding this application. Applicant had <br />signed off on the resolution agreeinq to the removal of the <br />specific areas of hardcover. <br />b) Applicant claims that it would create a safety hazard to <br />remove the additional paved area adjacent to Chadywood Road and <br />that it provides additional on -site parking. <br />The City has provided the applicant with a turn -around on his <br />property, thereby eliminating the need to back out onto Shadywood <br />Road. Additional parking for visitors or guests can be provided <br />within ttie grassed areas of the property. <br />c) Applicant contends that the detached garage is desparately <br />needed for storage and that it must remain. <br />Once again, it would appear that the applicant entered into an <br />agreement with the City without any serious thought as to '-he <br />consequences. A larger, improved house and the detached oarage <br />would create a cluttered and densely developed look in comparing <br />current pattern of development within the neighborhood. <br />d) Applicant claims the bulk -head door/storm door shelter is <br />needed for emergency accesses to the house and for certain repair <br />and maintenance activities. <br />Once again, this should have been addressed with the original <br />review. Theme is interior access to the basement area via the <br />principal residence. <br />6. At the Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 1908, the <br />Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the current application <br />based on the following findinqs: <br />Faqe 3 of 6 <br />