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 7 of 28  <br />  <br />7. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO <br />AVENUE, VARIANCES (continued) <br />Denman indicated it is facing the same direction but is now at an angle. <br /> <br />Levang stated she is concerned about the 23 feet versus the 30. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the practical difficulty is the driveway slope. <br /> <br />Denman stated in their view what they have proposed is a good solution if the Council is in favor of the <br />variance. <br /> <br />Walsh moved, Printup seconded, Application No. 16-3808, Rick Denman on behalf of Casco <br />Ventures, LLC, 3800 Casco Avenue, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting lot <br />area, rear and front yard setback variances as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 <br /> <br />8. #16-3818 DALE MULFINGER (SALA ARCHITECTS) ON BEHALF OF CHRIS AND <br />LESLIE NEUGENT, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lake setback variances as well as a 0-75 foot hardcover variance <br />in order to construct additions to the existing cabin and construct a detached storage building/garage on <br />the east side of the property. All of the projects will be located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback <br />line. Therefore an average lakeshore setback variance is necessary. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing. The Planning <br />Commission voted 5-0 to approve the variances with the recommendation that the construction plans be <br />revised to reflect the type of foundation to be used under the screen porch. The applicant has submitted <br />those revised plans. <br /> <br />Staff has provided a draft resolution for Council review. <br /> <br />Levang noted the Planning Commission discussed the new porch not becoming a 4-season addition to the <br />house but did not stipulate to that in their recommendations. Levang asked if the City Council is <br />comfortable with not including that in the resolution. <br /> <br />Curtis noted it is difficult for Staff to enforce that kind of provision but the City Council can impose that <br />if they would like. Curtis noted the mass and structure would still there with the 3-season porch and will <br />not change if it is a 4-season porch. <br /> <br />McMillan asked about the foundation. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicants are showing construction utilizing those 3’ x 3’ piers. Since the applicants’ <br />verbal plan did not coincide with their plans on paper, it was requested that they provide revised plans <br />showing that the existing footings will be utilized. Those revised plans have been submitted and show <br />they will be utilizing the existing footings. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the issue he has is the encroachment into the 0-75 foot zone and that he is not sure why the <br />Council would allow them to encroach simply because those footings exist in that area. Walsh stated it <br />does not matter to him if it is a 3-season porch or a 4-season porch.