Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 27, 2009 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(3. #08 -3361 CITY OF OR ONO, CODE AMENDMENT FOR HARDCOVER <br />REGULATIONS, Continued) <br />non - conforming hardcover. The City Attorney has drafted an ordinance, which does not include <br />provisions requiring removal of non - conforming hardcover. Staff has requested that hardcover <br />debiting be included. Hardcover debiting is subtracting the amount of excess hardcover from the <br />amount of allowed hardcover in the next zone away from the lake. It has been used in hardcover <br />variances. Adding it to the Code would allow it to be used in all situations. It would also <br />encourage removal of non - conforming hardcover. <br />The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 on consent to recommend approval. <br />White stated in his view the ordinance is well drafted and that he is not aware of anything else <br />that should be included. <br />Murphy stated it was not clear to him regarding the rationale for paying for the removal of <br />hardcover. It was his understanding that the City could request the removal of the hardcover as <br />part of the application process. <br />Mattick stated technically the City can still do that, but that there was a change in the law <br />approximately two years. As a condition in an application, the City can require the removal of <br />nonconforming hardcover, but the City would be required to pay for the hardcover. In <br />applications requesting variances for homes with structures located within the 0 -75 foot zone, the • <br />City can require the removal of those illegal nonconformities and can also require the removal of <br />the legal nonconformities but that the City would need to pay for the legal nonconformities. <br />Mattick stated Staff did not feel the City would want to pay for those items and so left that <br />language out of the draft ordinance. <br />Bremer asked whether there was ever a situation where a narrower driveway was required. <br />Gaffron stated to his recollection eight feet was the narrowest. <br />Curtis stated it was eight feet with an apron. <br />Turner noted the minimum driveway apron widths are 9 feet for one stall, 16 feet for two stalls, <br />and 28 feet for three stalls. A single stall garage door is 9 feet wide. Staff feels the driveway <br />width at the garage should be the width of the garage door. <br />Franchot asked why a driveway serving a side - loading garage has different turn around depth. <br />Turner stated it has to do with the backing out of a side - loading garage, which requires that the <br />vehicle make a 90- degree turn, which is why the apron depth was changed. <br />McMillan asked whether the Council should encourage side - loading garages. <br />Gaffron stated that standard is in effect to accommodate property owners of narrow properties <br />and that Staff felt it was important to have a minimum standard. • <br />Turner stated it also depends on the length of the driveway. <br />PAGE 2 <br />