My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/08/2012 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
10/08/2012 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2015 3:16:05 PM
Creation date
2/19/2015 3:16:03 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
- <br /> ' MINUTES OF TI� <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,October 8,2012 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (8. #12-3575 SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, Continued) <br /> Sharratt stated due to the steepness on the alley side,they cannot dig that area out. The applicants would <br /> be agreeable with saying that there will never be a screened porch and that they would be willing to put <br /> that into the title or deed. <br /> McMillan indicated she is in agreement with Council Member Rahn and Staff on this application and that <br /> a 10-foot setback is appropriate. McMillan stated part of the reason the City changed the hardcore <br /> ordinance is that they did not want to get into a situation where the setbacks were disregarded. McMillan <br /> commented there has to be some sort of parameters on setbacks and that the 10 feet setback being <br /> recommended by Staff is a good compromise. <br /> Printup moved,Rahn seconded,Application#12-3575,Scott and Melissa Musg,jerd,4156 Highwood <br /> Road,to accept Staff s recommendation. <br /> Sharratt asked if the City Council is suggesting that the design revision is a requirement in order for them <br /> to proceed. <br /> McMillan stated they can enclose the deck as part of the house and that it is not a necessity to have a <br /> deck. McMillan stated the deck has to comply with the 10-foot setback. <br /> McMillan stated the City Council can either vote on the application tonight or the applicants can request <br /> that their application be tabled. <br /> Mr.Musgjerd indicated they are supposed to close on the properiy November 13"'. <br /> Curtis noted the next City Council meeting is October 22na <br /> Mattick stated no one is requiring the deck. <br /> Sharratt stated unless they are willing to redesign the home to make all the space interior or place the deck <br /> on the lakeside,those are their only options. <br /> Rahn noted on the alley side they are required to have a 35-foot setback and Council would allow a <br /> variance on the garage end of the house,but on the lake side of the home the maj ority of the Council is <br /> agreeable with a 10-foot setback instead of 3.5 feet. <br /> McMillan stated she considers the garage to be a hardship and that a deck is not a hardship. <br /> Rahn asked if there is an average lakeshore setback for this property. <br /> Curtis indicated the average lakeshore setback line is shown on the overhead. <br /> Sharratt asked if the motion prevails if that means they need to maintain the footprint of the house. <br /> Bremer stated the answer is no. <br /> McMillan stated the deck footprint would have to be reduced to comply with the 10-foot setback. <br /> Page 11 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.