Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8,1997 <br />(#7) #2276 JULIE AND BRENT WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE - <br />VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO <br />Mr. and Mrs. .Walton were present. <br />Van Zomeren passed out photos to the Council of the property. She indicated that the <br />application is a request to build a new residence on a vacant lot. The property is <br />substandard in size at 12,754 s.f The Planning Commission reviewed the application and <br />voted 4:3 for a reduction in structural coverage to meet 15%. This has been <br />accomplished. Language has also been added to provide an easement to the City for <br />sanitary sewer due to a change in location. The water line ofif Shoreline Drive also has to <br />be relocated. The applicant has agreed to these changes. <br />Van Zomeren reported that a preliminary plat review from 1996 for a lot line <br />rearrangement when under the ownership of Mr. Oberhauser was approved with the <br />condition that the lots be combined and a shared driveway be used. The application was <br />not followed through on by Oberhauser. Lots A, B, and C are now under control by <br />three parties, McNamara, Larson, and Walton. Oberhauser is listed as taxpayer but not <br />owner. The Waltons have demonstrated interest in purchasing Lot C. They will require <br />a hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback. A portion of the hardship is due to the <br />direction of the Planning Commission for location of a turnaround in the driveway from <br />Dunwoody Avenue. The hardcover would total 41.3% where 25% is allowed. No <br />hardship will exist in the 0-75' setback. <br />Mr. Walton reported that the Planning Commission required them to pro\hde the sewer <br />easement, new water line, and new driveway. The hardcover variance is required due to <br />the lot's long and narrow size at 50'x276' average for the driveway. <br />Jabbour indicated he had spoken with the applicant eariier and provided the Walton's with <br />some background information. He said the Council had recommended the lots be <br />combined as they were substandard in size. It was then found that this did not occur. <br />Jabbour felt it was important for the applicants to understand what has occurred and <br />noted it in no way affects them or thdr application. <br />Jabbour said he was very surprised to find out that Oberhauser did not follow through as <br />determined noting the length of time it took to bring the application before the Council at <br />that time. <br />Kelley questioned whether Lots A, B, and C would be considered buildable if the <br />previous plan had not been reviewed. <br />Gafhon said he believed that each of the three lots were assessed for sewer. At least <br />two, if not three, of the lots had houses on them at one time or another. Gaffron said <br />each lot is substandard and would require lot area and lot width variances.