My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
04-24-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 2:23:26 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 2:19:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
171
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 />Monday, April 10, 2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />15. #17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, 1298 WILDHURST TRAIL AND LOT 3, BLOCK <br />WILDHURST, VARIANCES (Continued) <br />Staff has received a revised practical difficulty form from the applicant. Staff does not feel they <br />adequately support the variances requested. Tonight the Council has the option to refer the application <br />back to the Planning Commission or to make a decision based on the new information submitted by the <br />applicant. <br />Curtis noted the lots are currently conforming. Therefore Staff recommends denial of variances for lot <br />width to create the new lakeshore lot. If the applicant is able to show both lots can meet the required 140 - <br />foot standard at the 01-IWL and at the 75 -foot setback, Staff would support a side setback variance for the <br />existing home if it is needed. <br />Tonight the Council should direct Staff to draft a resolution regarding their decision for consideration at <br />their April 24 meeting or refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. <br />Printup commented it seemed like the Planning Commission felt this was reasonable but that there were <br />some questions about the practical difficulty. <br />Walsh stated the practical difficulty statement was not filled out correctly and that the Planning <br />Commission recommended the applicant take another look at that. <br />Walsh stated to his understanding the applicant has owned this property for 50-60 years and that there <br />was a channel that was dredged out a long time ago that created a weird 75 -foot setback. Walsh stated if <br />you look at the arc of the 75 -foot setback, there is 140 feet of width distance on the outside of the arc with <br />a small setback issue with the existing house. Walsh stated to his knowledge the setback gets within three <br />feet of the house instead of ten feet due to the nature of the lots. Walsh stated the goal is to see if the City <br />Council can figure out how to make these things work better. <br />Printup asked whether the lot line was adjusted so the two lots were conforming. <br />Curtis stated the way the surveyor has measured the width at the 75 -foot setback is on the outside of the <br />curve or arc to the upland side, and the way the Code requires lakeshore lots be measured is a straight line <br />at the location where the 75 -foot setback hits both property lines. Curtis stated the way it is measured <br />takes advantage of the awkward shape of the shoreline <br />Walsh stated obviously you could not measure from the inside of the arc because then you would be <br />within the 75 -foot setback. Walsh stated the channel is one of the structural in nature issues that causes a <br />practical difficulty by creating this strange arc. <br />Page 10 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.