10-09-1995 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 1995 ( #I l - 92071 James and Joann Jundt - Continued) Jabbour suggested the variance be given provided no building permit issued until the plans were received by Staff The other Council members concurred with this suggestion. Council discussed this option. Hurr advised that the final occupancy cannot be held up for the variance. Kelley questioned whether an application could be denied based on future work, and whether this was a legitimate reason to deny an application. Hurr then suggested tabling for additional information. Callahan believed it was reasonable to ask for the total project plan until a decision was made on this application. The information would relate to the finishing up of the project as a number of issues have been completed recently. The variance approval, according to Callahan, could be contingent upon receiving the plan by a certain date. Kelley questioned whether the plan would be for the entire house and accessory structure or the accessory structure alone. Callahan said the plan should be for the entire site. Callahan moved, Jabbour seconded, to reconsider tabling the application. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Gaffron reviewed the application. The proposal is for excavation partially in the 0 -75' zone in order to waterproof a tunnel in the hillside. The 36" elm tree has already been removed. The City was made aware of the tree removal and asked the project be stopped. The variance was then applied for by the applicant. The proposal to excavate the tunnel for waterproofing will replace the soil to existing grade. The proposal calls for • mitigation for the removed tree with two new trees. Gafron said the packet includes a letter from Ostvig Tree Co., in which the arborist stated the elm tree was in a poor condition. A healthy tree would not have survived the excavation either. Jabbour responded that if the Council had the opportunity to review the application, they might have chosen the tree over the waterproofing. Crawford said when the repair of the retaining wall was taking place, it was felt the tree and roots caused the deterioration to the walls and removed the tree based on that assumption. Hurr said, and Crawford concurred, that no discussion was had regarding the excavating and the tree. Mabusth said the retaining wall at entrance to tunnel was reviewed under a previous variance/conditional use permit application dealing with structural improvements to greenhouse. Hurr said she was concerned with the comparison of replacing a 36" elm with only two 4" maples. This did not seem like a reasonable two- for -one replacement. Mabusth said the building staff has not reviewed the tree replacement. Jabbour said the variance application granted permission for the retaining wails only. It was possible that the Council would have required the tunnel to be removed. He voiced concern that the applicant was only succeeding with each project because only a little information is being given at a time_ • 8