05-28-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGUL.\R ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON MAY 13, 1996 {U4 - #2088 Winfield Stephens - Continued) Mabusth reported that the new construction would extend 6’ further east into the substandard setback on the north lot line proposed at 3 5' This includes a second story addition A 26 5' variance is required The structure meets the required 50' setback from Bayside, but an 8'x21' covered deck extends to the 45' line requiring a 5' setback variance from Bayside The existing hardcover in the 250'-500' zone exists at 45% and is proposed at 4% 2% Mabusth noted that the vacated right-of-way was added but this is a small area Callahan inquired how the entire 30' alley was added to the Stephens property, when the normal procedure is for a 50/50 split betwr:'n adjacent property owners Mabusth said the division of the right-of-w ay is dependent on the underly ing fee ownership The original owner and applicant entered into an agreement with property owners to west to insure that they would not make claim to vacated right-of-way Applicants have submitted the agreement to the County The residents on Landmark Drive had no interest in the alley It was noted that the propeny is part of the Otto\ ille subdivision in which uie right-of-way is included. Kelley asked to view the legal building envelope for the property. Mabusth reviewed the e.xisting and proposed building envelope Jabbour noted that without the vacated right-of-way, the property would be very limited Kelley asked to recall a 1979 variance approval for the property Mabusth said the previous owner, Mr Ciardiner, never proceeded with that improvement. Goetten was informed that the old deck was part of the new residence Mabusth noted that during the Planning Commission review, the neighbor to the north was found to be required to place his house at the 50' setback and asked that this proposed construction not encroach further cast along the substandard setback. Kelley said, even with the use of the foundation, he saw the project as a tear down and rebuild Mabusth adv ised that this issue w as of major importance to the Planning Commission Kelley asked what would happen if applicant's structural engineer requires a new cinder block foundation Mabusth said the application would have to come back before the Council She added that it was her understanding that the current foundation was usable. A new cast wall w ill be built but the original foundation of the house will remai.n The new support wall is required to support the construction of the second story.