Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday March 13,2017 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 14. #17-3896 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: STRUCTURAL COVERAGE— <br /> ORDINANCE No. 187—Continued- <br /> Barnhart stated whenever an applicant comes forward, Staff strongly encourages them to comply with the <br /> structural coverage limitation and that he does not know what would happen if it is removed completely. <br /> Barnhart stated his fear is that Orono will lose some of that distinction between Orono and some of the <br /> other lake communities. <br /> Walsh noted the City differentiates between two acre lots and lots that are less than two acres. Walsh <br /> stated if you have to start putting exceptions to a rule,you need to look at the rule. Walsh stated people <br /> with small lots have to choose between having a deck or a screened in porch and that people with two <br /> acre lots are allowed both. <br /> Walsh stated he has been talking for a couple of years that they need to treat everyone the same. Walsh <br /> stated on a small lot,the driveway will have that much bigger impact than if it is on a two acre lot. Walsh <br /> indicated he would like to give the smaller lots a little more flexibility. Walsh noted approximately 70 <br /> percent of the lots in Orono are less than two acres. Walsh indicated he is in favor of Option A since all <br /> the lots will then be treated the same. <br /> Printup noted Option B eliminates the decks from the structural coverage. Printup asked if this would <br /> become a nonissue if the decks are eliminated. Printup stated there would still be the structural <br /> component but the need for variances would become almost a nonissue. <br /> Printup stated he has a fear that if the structural coverage is removed altogether, someone could build out <br /> their house and later say they have issues with hardcover due to driveway and sidewalk issues. <br /> Walsh stated the City already deals with that. Walsh noted Staff already advises applicants to comply as <br /> much as possible with structural coverage and hardcover. Walsh stated the square footage is a bigger <br /> percentage of the lot on the smaller lots. Walsh indicated he could live with the 20 percent and <br /> eliminating the decks to provide some more flexibility. Walsh stated if the City is always granting <br /> exceptions to the rule,they need to look at the rule. <br /> Printup stated in his view decks should not be considered hardcover. Printup stated they talk about a deck <br /> that is 30 inches offthe ground, and then how a handrail is required if it is over a certain height and how it <br /> becomes structural coverage, and then they talk about the rain not hitting the ground and so it is <br /> considered hardcover. Printup stated those types of conversations need to stop. <br /> Seals commented that is a topic for a different night. <br /> Seals stated if the Council went with Option B and altered it to say 20 percent,those changes would <br /> provide more flexibility for smaller lots. <br /> Printup noted Option B also eliminates decks and open structures,which would alleviate a lot of the <br /> requests the City hears. <br /> Walsh stated he could live with Option B if it is increased to 20 percent because it will give the smaller <br /> lots more flexibility. <br /> Page 24 of 32 <br />