12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

—.V MLNUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 22, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (5. P04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued) Attorney Barrett pointed out that the property north of the parcel which appears to line this property was a platted right-of-way. Alternatives to this use would be to regulate the use of the road or vote to abandon it, which the City would not recommend. Vogstrom pointed out that the lagoon is too shallow to serve access for a boat or dock and the parcel to the north is heavily wooded and wet. Since the City would not support dredging the lagoon. White agreed the dock should stay on the main portion of the lake. He indicated that he needed a better reason to support much more than 25% hardcover. Keane pointed out that one would be hard-pressed to find a similar property in Orono in which the 0-75’ is almost entirely taken up by lagoon. He continued noting that the mere 1,080 s.f footprint is a modest footprint by today's standards. At a current hardcover level of 4,732 s.f, the applicant has projjosed a decrease of over 35%. He reiterated that the lagoon affords the applicant a unique hardship, though they’ve tried to scale back to accomplish the necessary reductions. While he could appreciate the logic and reductions, Murphy stated that the problem he continues to wrestle with was that they simply do not know enough .about the house. He felt the Council needed to know more about w'hat was being proposed in order to make decisions, though he understood the costs to the client. In addition he wished to see a landscape restoration plan accompanying the proposal. Gaffron stated that staff had a landscape plan which w as being review'ed currently and asked for Council to establish relative timelines. White pointed out that although the applicant has tried to show that they have substantially reduced hardcover on the property, the driveway hardcover should not be included in the hardcover calculation by the applicant in their efforts to accentuate the amount of hardcover removals. He pointed out that the e.xccssive tree removals have done immeasurable damage to and exacerbated the runoff situation to the property. He questioned how' the applicant, or the applicant’s contractor, could have believed that the excessive tree removals on this property were allowed at all. While he concurred with White, Murphy stated that he w as not prepared to allow more than 25% until the Council knew w'hat was to be built on the site. Mayor Peterson asked Attorney Barrett whether they could forbid rebuilding on the property until the City could approve a restoration project. Since they w ished to see the reforestation take place first, she asked whether building could be delayed. WTiile Barrett understood the issues the City Council was wrestling with this evening, he requested that the matter be continued to allow the applicant time to bnng forw ard a plan that works. Murphy suggested that applicant table the application until the applicant can come up w ith a plan that meets staff support. PAGE 5 of 11 I i t