My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-24-2013 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2013
>
06-24-2013 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2015 10:31:24 AM
Creation date
4/7/2015 1:58:02 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
209
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Tuesday, June 10, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> Page 10 of 32 <br />(8. #13-3605 BRIAN AND REBECCA HENNING, 245 TONKA AVENUE, VARIANCES – <br />PUBLIC HEARING, Continued) <br /> <br />McMillan noted there is some practical difficulty with the lot in regards to the deck. McMillan asked <br />how the Council feels about the shed. <br /> <br />Levang noted since there is no building permit and is located in an illegal spot, the shed should be <br />removed or relocated. <br /> <br />McMillan noted the City is generally pretty firm with not allowing an accessory structure in front of the <br />principal structure and that there is no practical difficulty for allowing the shed. McMillan indicated they <br />can hold the public hearing but that in her view it should not be approved. If this shed is approved, it <br />would be difficult to deny anyone else from having a shed in their front yard. <br /> <br />Levang indicated that is her issue as well with the shed. <br /> <br />Bremer asked if there is a conforming location for the shed. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated they could possibly move it to the rear of the property. <br /> <br />Brian Henning stated they purchased the property last November with the shed in its current location and <br />that they were unaware of any issues. It is a nice looking shed and matches the house. The topography of <br />the lot is difficult to locate it anywhere else. The property is landscaped in the back and planted with <br />shrubs and bushes, which makes it difficult to put a shed in that area without disturbing the plantings. <br />Henning indicated they have looked at moving the shed and it is very expensive to do that. The property <br />is well guarded from view by most of the neighbors and there are a number of trees in the area. The road <br />is also a dead-end road with limited traffic. Henning indicated it would be a bit of a hardship to relocate <br />it. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the City is attempting to preserve the view from the road and not allow accessory <br />structures in the front yard. While this particular shed is not that offensive, it would set a precedent and <br />would create issues on other properties. <br /> <br />McMillan opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. <br /> <br />Levang commented it is unfortunate that the applicants purchased the property with the shed in that <br />location and did not realize it was not conforming. Levang stated the ordinances are there for a reason <br />and that it is the responsibility of the City Council to uphold those ordinances. <br /> <br />Printup indicated he is in agreement with Council Member Levang’s statement. Printup commented it is <br />a nice looking shed and asked when the shed was constructed. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated she is not sure when it was constructed. Staff became aware of it when the survey was <br />submitted. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda 06/24/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 06/10/2013 [Page 10 of 32]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.