04-08-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2002 • PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS DEBORAH HAL VORSON, REPRESENTATIVE — Continued The Planning Commission found hardships in the fact that they prefer cars to exit the driveway facing the street, and the lakeshore setback and age and size of the trees were also factors. Mike Sherridan stated that in the City's variance application packet, it listed trees as something that could constitute a variance. He stated they tried to design a responsibly sized structure, placed the footprint around the existing trees, and used the existing drive. Tom Palm of 1685 Concordia Street stated that he supported the current plan because it held up the aesthetics of the neighborhood and would not negatively impact the neighbors. Nygard moved, and White seconded, to approve the requested variances, allowing for greater than 25% hardcover in the 75 – 250' setback zone at an amount to be determined after the driveway is reduced in width from 18' to 14' along the south side where the maple trees sit with the understanding that the trees and their root systems will not be disturbed, also with the understanding that the house will be constructed in a normal position that does not restrict views, and instructing staff to draft a resolution that reflects Council discussion. • Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. #02 -2761 Addison and Cindy Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road — Conditional Use Permit and Variance — Resolution No. 4785 Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4785 granting variances to Municipal Code Sections 10.03, Subdivision 12 to permit the pool house to be located 9.3' from the principal structure where 10' is required; Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) to permit construction of a screen porch which encroaches 15' into the average lakeshore setback; a conditional use permit to allow the guest house per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(G); and a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the accessory building (pool house) per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3(Q). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Nygard stated that he felt the City subsidizes alarm companies by allowing people with alarms free responses to false alarms. It costs the City in wear and tear on vehicles, time and man power. Sansevere stated the cost is passed on to the homeowner, who is the taxpayer. He also stated they only get one free, then there is a charge for false alarms. Nygard stated that people who don't own alarms shouldn't have to pay for those who do. He stated false alarms are a problem for both the police and fire departments. Sansevere 5