Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 14, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 7 of 13 <br /> <br />19. LA21-000030 – TOM BERGSTROM, 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD, VARIANCES – <br />Continued <br /> <br />conforming improvement. Portions of the house that exist today were built within the previous home <br />footprint. <br /> <br />Johnson has the same thought as Mayor Walsh – if he was not supposed to remove that hardcover as a <br />function of his original permit and is willing to relinquish that in exchange for that small chunk, Johnson <br />thinks that achieves what they are trying to do in limiting within the 0-75. That is a net gain. <br /> <br />Mayor Walsh stated that is a huge net gain and is the direction they want to keep going. <br /> <br />Johnson would be comfortable approving this variance application while getting rid of the deck and rocks <br />that go with it. <br /> <br />Johnson moved, Printup seconded, to approve LA21-000030, 1509 Long Lake Blvd, variances with <br />the removal of the existing hardcover in the 0-75 with the surrounding rock and deck in exchange <br />for allowing the new encroachment into the 75 foot setback. <br /> <br />20. LA21-000032 – AL AZAD, 165 BEDERWOOD DR., VARIANCES <br /> <br />Curtis presented a summary packet of information to the Council and said the Applicant is requesting <br />variances related to lot area, lot width, and front and rear setback in order to redevelop the property with a <br />new single family home. In May, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public <br />hearing the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the variances. The Commission contemplated <br />different orientations for the home with respect to the setbacks, but the Applicant chose to proceed as <br />proposed. Planning Staff does not support the variance for front and rear yard setbacks as supporting <br />practical difficulties have not been clearly identified. Council should consider directing Staff to draft a <br />resolution reflecting their decision. <br /> <br />Mayor Walsh asked to explain the moving pieces on this application. <br /> <br />Curtis noted this lot previously had front (defined as east) and rear (defined as the west lot line) which is <br />an awkward configuration because there is no technical road frontage. Bederwood Drive is not a platted <br />roadway and it ends within the Luce Line property. There is a detached garage shown up and possibly <br />over the property line. <br /> <br />Johnson said the purposes of the setbacks of a house by ordinance are ultimately for conformity with the <br />neighborhoods, etcetera. <br /> <br />Curtis replied that is correct and is why the front is oriented towards the road as the neighbor’s house is. <br /> <br />Johnson noted this is such a bizarre circumstance. When he looked at it, he was pretty comfortable with <br />the design because it is by itself around the corner and set back in there. As the Planning Commission <br />talked about, what is actually the “front” is really arbitrary because there is a secret little road going on <br />the Luce Line property and into that property. He did not see a problem with what they are doing as long <br />as they are fine on hardcover, etcetera. He likes the fact that they are getting rid of the garage that was <br />