Laserfiche WebLink
^ i <br />‘ I <br />MINITTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25,1997 <br />(#12 - Variance for David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) <br />Jabbour asked Counsel if the resolution allows the applicant to continue as he is doing <br />and remain in compliance. Bairett said the Council needs to determine whether the <br />premise of the resolution, which is allowing additional structure to the existing reridence, <br />is occurring. He noted that if it is determined to be new construction, a lot area variance <br />would also be required in addition to the variances ^proved. <br />Kdley noted the difiScuh issues at hand and differing viewpoints. <br />Jabbour said the discussion is not to review the application but to determine whether the <br />approved application is being diverted from. <br />Kdley said he bdieves it has changed. <br />Peterson said she does not bdieve that was Rahn's intentimi. <br />Rahn noted that to a certain extent, the City required the ei^eering that occurred. He <br />sees the only issue as being the two courses of block added. <br />KeUey stated that this brings up the issue that en^neering should occur prior to approval <br />of an ai^lication. If the facts had been known prior to the approval, he questioned <br />whether the decision would have been differem. Kelley said these facts should have been <br />known. <br />Vaiig said he would like to correct the ord^ of events. According to the resolution, the <br />Council directed an inspection of the foundation. Staff required the engineer to review <br />the foundation and found h to be structurally sound but not meeting the 42** dq>th. A <br />plan was developed to provide additional underpinning. <br />Ketl^ said that issue should have been discussed before the Planning Commission and <br />Council review and may have changed the judgments made. <br />Jabbour said he feels the process should be done in the building permit process as it <br />creates an added burden on the property owner. He noted surveying is e?q>ensive and <br />with the engineering, the applicant could pay a large sum and then receive a denial. He <br />ii^s conditions should be placed on the approval in terms of what checkpoints need to be <br />met. <br />Kelley said the issue is what occurs when these problems are found during the project <br />that Staff says is different from that approved by Council resulting in the Coun^ <br />becoming caught inbetweetL