09-08-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (13. #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, 3135 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) 2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home where the width at the shoreline and 75’ setback is 60’ when 100* is normally required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover in the 0*75’ zone when 0% is allowed and to allow 37% hardcover in the 250*500’ zone when 30% is allowed. The Plaiuiing Commission recommended on a 4*1 \ulc appro\ul consistent with staffs recommendation for: 1. Approval of the lot area va iance to allow reconstruction of a home. 2. Approval of the lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone when 0% is required to be consistent with what has been approved on rebuild lots. 4. Approval of the hardcover variance to allow 37® o hardcover in the 250-500’ zone w hen 30% is required due to the minimal area allotted in this zone and sight visibility triangles which result in a larger driveway. Hawn cast the dissenting vote allow ing the deck to remain in the 0-75’ zone. Bruce Meese stated that they were hesitant to remove the deck, as it was attached to the existing concrete retaining wall, and they would be concerned it might adversely impact the support provided by the wall. Ms. Murphy stated that Otten Brothers had indicated that if the deck is removed they would need to add additional stone rip rap to stabilize the steep slope. \S’hile she explained that it is their desire to comply, she did not feel removing hardcover to be replaced with new hardcover was a good solution. WTiite asked why the deck and wall system wasn’t seen as a hardship, since it holds up the steep slope. Gaffron stated that, in staff s perspective, we do not know whether removing the deck from the wall system w ill negatively impact the stability of the slope. He recognized that the neighbor also has the same concrete wall system retaining their slope. Ms. Murphy stated that they performed recent repairs to the deek and covered the ugly concrete wall with cedar in order to disguise it naturally. Waataja stated that the applicants would be allowed steps up the hill and a landing. Sansevere questioned if having the applicant remove the decking along the concrete wall was a better solution, thus leaving the ugly exposed concrete instead. White noted that the applicant had no flat space at the shoreline to put anything. Gaffron acknowledged that the positive impact is that the deck could be helping hold up the slope, negatively, the hardcover is not allowed by code. He also questioned if it would be a worse visual Page 10 of 14