02-19-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wcdaesday, JasHary 22,2003 6:30 o'clock p*Bi. (M2-2tS4 KEVIN MANLEY, Coatlaaed) Gaf&on staled that the lakeside stairs would lead to a dock system and that sufT found that acceptable. The street side steps were not an issue. Frilzler stated that his questions had been answered and that he would support Option 1, as long as the City could be sure the work was completed as promised. Chair Smith indicated that she could support the construction of a boulder wall system versus key'stone for aesthetic reasons. With regard to the inspector’s comments. Chair Smith agr^. however was concerned about the future of the property. She also believed more trees were needed and that a timeline should be provided with ways to monitor the progress. Rahn asked if Option 1 restored the side yards. He indicated that if staff were satisfied w ith Option 1 as proposed, which restores the property the closest to the original state, he could support that as well. Ganion stated that Option I would not restore the side yards as proposed. He believed that by rcstonng the original 3 or 4;1 slope, you might gam something, but cause the need for double retaining walls as reflected in old photos. While she could support Option I. Zugschwert indicated that she could not see sacrificing the future of the property by requiring the side yards be restored. Chair Smith was troubled by the fact that, had the application for this gradmg and retaining wall work been before the Commission prior to being done, it would have been denied. In order to keep the shoreline as safe as possible. Hawn agreed that the City had now been put in the terrible position. Hawn moved lo rccoomiend approval of AppUcatioa #02-2154, Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerocss Poini Road, granting an After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional I se Permit for land alteration and hardcover within 75* of the shoreline as per Option I of the slafTs rccommendatfam, along with a schedule detailing the timeline for compktion of various pieces of the pro|cct, plus additional pbatiag of trees oa the property, and subject to sUff recommendations as per the staff report dated January 16,2003. Hawn asked if regularly scheduled inspections should be done during the process. Although he wished someone from the City could visit the site on a regular basis, due to limited staff, Gaffron indicated this realistically couldn’t be done. Fritiler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6/1. Chair Smith dlssentiag. Chair Smith stated that she would like to sec the property much more closely restored to its original state. PAGE 4 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO P1.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, Jannary 22,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. m P3I. #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, 2*17 CASCO POI.NT ROAD, PLAN REVISIONS 7:19 - 7:45 Wesley Byrne, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant was granted a 75-250* hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot area/widlh variances were necessary because the e.xisting house walls and foundation would remain, without structural repairs. Gaffron felt that during the February 2002 review. it was not clear that the plan os approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet. Gaffron continued that a condition of the approval was that if it w as determined the existing foundation was required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals would be w ithdra.. n and a new variance application submitted. Afler being issued a building permit in June of 2002. the building inspector only recently noted that while the additions w ere progressing, the second story of the residence has now been completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Furthermore. Gaffron noted the inspection department questioned the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story wall w ith substandard setback, to which the applicant has hired a structural engineer to review the situation. Gaffron pointed out that replacement of the remov ed second story in the substandard setback clcarl> requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. In addition, the removal of portions of the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggers ll c need for further City review. Gafiron questioned whether the remodeling addition process has resulted m removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requinng all setbacks to be met. He also questioned whether allowing the second stoiy lo be put back in the substandard setback should be an option at all. Byrne stated that his intent from the beginning has been to work with City stafl’. He acknowledged that, in hindsight, he should have considered bulldozing the entire home and started fresh, as many new issues continue to arise. The structural engineer lOokcd at and discov -red some obv ious rot issues and repau- work that needed lo be done. At this point. Mr. B vttic asked the Commission to grant him a setback variance, as it would be very costly to change the design now. Had he realized this a year ago. Bvrne stated he would have designed the home differently. Chair Smith noted that the Fcbruaiy 2002 Minutes address the need to readdress the foundation issue at a later date if it became an issue. B>Tne reiterated that had he known the foundation would become an issue he would have done things differently. Rahn was surprised that the foundation stability had not been addressed earlier, pnor to or dunng construction. He stated that, in his view, this project is a rebuild and wtu a rebuild from the start. The only thing he was not clear on was the need for a raised roof, which he felt, further encroached into the side setback by massing the encroachment. PAGE 5 of 29