02-25-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11,2002 *5. #01-2709 Rich and Anne Shuil—2285 French Creek Road —Changes to Approved Plan—Continued for adoption. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 6. i^01-2730 Ace Properties, 3375 Cry stal Bay Road—Variances Larry Palm was present. Weinberger stated the applicants planned to remove an existing building and construct a house on the residential site. He kept the application off the Consent Agenda because he received a new plan just before the meeting. The surveyor had found that the house was actually to be located 9.7’ and 9.8’from the side property line where a 10 ’ setback is required, which would be in addition to the variances listed in the staff report. The first variance was to lot area and lot w idth where i 'A acre and 100 ’ are required. He stated the lot was of the type for which the City routinely grants variances. The second variance was to allow hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and to permit greater than 25% hardcover in the 75 - 250 ’ of the lakeshore. Also, a variance was required to allow encroachment into the 30 ’ rear yard setback. The Planning Commission recommended the house not exceed 1,500 s.f. The actual foundation of the building was 50 ’ x 30 ’. exactly 1,500 s.f. A cantilever at the rear of the house extends the floor space slightly, pushing the floor space over 1,500 s.f. Weinberger stated that the cantilever could be a bay window or a bay that would not extend the floor space of the house. Mr. Palm stated that their previous survey had shown that they met the 10 ’ side setback with the house at 30 ’ x 50 ’. He was notified that aflemoon before the meeting that the survey had been redone and they were slightly under the required side setback. He stated they were willing to change the cantilever by installing a bench seat so the floor space is not increased. White asked if approval would set any unwanted precedents. Barrett stated the Council had held to the 10 ’ lot line rule in the past. Nygard stated the land could provide a hardship because of the rear yard setback. Mr. Palm stated that losing even a few inches off the size of the house would negatively impact their plans. They had already downsized as much as possible based on Planning Commission recommendations, and had difficulty fitting the stairs into the plan they presented. Barrett suggested having staff draft a variance resolution with as much case-specific language in it as possible regarding the land and construction issues on that particular lot.