04-11-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 28,2005 7:00 o’clock p.m. (3. m-3066 WILUAM AND ANITA ROUSE, 4051HIGHWOOD ROAD, ContinueO) Rouse questioned where it is written what the difference is between a remodel versus a rebuild witiiin ttie City ordinance. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission had been wrestling with those definitions over the past several years. While Gaffron indicated that the code doesn’t allow expansion of a nonconformancy, admittedly this was a difficult situation that he felt must be presented to the Council for their opinion. Sansevere agreed witit the applicant ’s suggestion that he be allowed to shore up the existing foundation with the assistance of a structural engineer, or be forced to remove 210 s.f to be in compliance. Rouse stated that he would be willing to lose the 'bump* out on the side of the home which at 4.3’ is the closest point to the property line. Murphy agreed, stating that he would not recommend the west wall be completely moved if the applicant could firm it up where it stands. He asked that this be added to the existing resolution. Attorney Barrett stated that this could be added as an amendment to the Resolution. Rouse stated that he would remove the small bump out and repair/rebuild the foundation at that point tying the point into the foundation. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to allow the project to proceed as approved, with the caveat that the 'bump out* be removed on the west wall and that the foundation be replaced under the snpervlilon of a structural engineer and approval by the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Council mendrer McMillan arrived at 7:37 p.m. 4. #05-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE - VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Curtis explained that the applicants recently purchased the property and were notified that the retaining walls and hardcover in the lakeshore yard was installed by the previous owner without proper city permits. As it was their intent to do some remodeling including a small addition in the future, they wished to bring the property into compliance. The applicants have provided a revised proposal with removals resulting in 2S% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone and 268 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Curtis indicated that the applicants feel that by allowing the current retaining wall, existing vegetation and path to the lake to remain within this zone there would be less impact on the lake and would allow for uninterrupted use of their lake yard. Curtis stated that staff recommends denial of an after-the-fact hardcover variance for the 0-75’ setirack zone for hardcover in excess of the square footage that would be allowed for a permitted stair access. Staff would also recommend approval of a conditional use permit in order to re-grade the lake yard, including an erosion control plan and timeline for implementation. PAGE 3 of 14 tfilwtirt I 11 W 1^ Aa i sd ....................................IIS a I ^11 I III iH mat SI I