Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 9, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />Page 6 of 28  <br />  <br />7. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO <br />AVENUE, VARIANCES (continued) <br /> <br />Curtis pointed out the encroachment on the overhead. Curtis stated when the house was rotated more <br />counter-clockwise, it met the 30-foot setback. <br /> <br />McMillan asked why the house was rotated. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicant could probably better address that but that there were some comments at the <br />public hearing regarding the drainage on the property. Previously the applicant had a retaining wall <br />shown along the side and then subsequently rotated the house so it would be a better fit on the property. <br /> <br />Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, stated the primary reason they rotated the house was to maintain a <br />gentler slope coming up the driveway to the garage. Denman indicated he did not realize the slope of the <br />driveway when they were before the Planning Commission. In addition, the retaining wall has been <br />eliminated. Denman noted he is building a new home just to the west of this piece abutting Lot 10 and <br />that they are developing these two properties together. <br /> <br />Denman stated the reason for the variance is there is no good way to put a home on this lot with a decent <br />back yard due to the setbacks. Denman stated in his view this offers the most aesthetically and functional <br />way to do that. If the house were to be rotated and the front yard was the way it was originally proposed, <br />there would have been no back yard and the neighbor would be looking right into the back of the garage. <br />Denman stated this provides a nicer back yard as well as a nice street presentation. <br /> <br />Levang stated she had a concern about the orientation of both of the driveways. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead. Curtis asked where the driveway is in relation to the stop <br />sign. <br /> <br />Levang stated it appears the construction driveway is right in front of the stop sign. <br /> <br />Denman indicated he is not positive on that and that he would have to double check it. Denman asked if <br />there is a requirement that the driveway be located so far from the stop sign. <br /> <br />Walsh commented it appears that the stop sign is located in the middle of the driveway. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the driveway that is depicted is where it originally was. Levang noted there appears to <br />be some remnants of a past driveway at 3800. Levang asked whether the new driveway will be in the <br />same spot. <br /> <br />Denman stated it is pretty close. <br /> <br />Levang commented there is not much room for a back yard. Levang stated she is not sure whether the <br />difference between the two versions is something the Planning Commission should look at. Levang <br />asked if there is an overlay showing the difference between the two. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed the original plan. <br /> <br />Levang asked if they have changed the angle of the front door.