Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 14, 2008 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />__________________________________________________________________________________ <br />(6. #08-3335 DOUGLAS W. AND MARGARET S. FRANCHOT, 2010 COLIN DRIVE, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />Franchot indicated they have spoken with all of their neighbors regarding their proposal and that they <br />are in agreement with the plan. Franchot stated they have attempted to create a sensible plan for their <br />property and the neighbors and that the two sites that technically are conforming would locate the pool <br />immediately on their back line and dramatically closer to their neighbors’ house to the north, which is <br />located approximately 50 to 60 feet from their deck. Franchot stated they have attempted with this <br />proposal to locate the pool more in the center of their lot. <br /> <br />Franchot noted they do meet all of the City’s requirements for the setbacks except for the structure <br />being located in front of the principal structure. <br /> <br />Murphy asked the applicant to discuss the septic system and the trees on the lot and their general <br />location. <br /> <br />Franchot indicated his lot contains a number of mature trees, and illustrated on the overhead the three <br />separate areas where the mature trees are located. If the pool were located in the rear, a number of <br />mature trees would need to be removed. Franchot pointed out the two areas that have been designated <br />as septic sites. <br /> <br />McMillan inquired whether there are any other areas available for a septic site. <br /> <br />Franchot stated there is not. <br /> <br />Bremer stated in her view the Planning Commission was correct in their recommendation and <br />addressed the issues that were pertinent to the application but pointed out the City Council does have <br />the discretion to look at this application from a different perspective. Bremer indicated she does have <br />an issue with the pool house and that she personally would attempt to locate the pool and pool house <br />behind the house due to the visual impact of the structure from the street. <br /> <br />Franchot noted if the pool were located behind the residence, the amount of sun the pool would <br />receive would be approximately two and a half hours a day. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the reason for not allowing accessory buildings in front of a principal structure is to <br />reduce visual clutter from the roadway. <br /> <br />Turner concurred that the regulations regarding accessory structures in front of the principal structure <br />relate primarily to aesthetics. <br /> <br />Franchot stated they were informed early on in the application process that one of the reasons for the <br />ordinance is to maintain the streetscape and not have intrusions into the neighbors’ view. Franchot <br />noted there are only four lots on this private road and that the ordinance really does not apply in this <br />situation. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the view from the roadway would be dependent on how well the screening is <br />maintained in the future. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />PAGE 3 of 13 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 04/28/08 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 04/14/08 [Page 3 of 13]