Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, JUNE 12, 2000 <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />*3. #2486 Elaine Erickson, 1270 Spruce Place— Conditional Use Permit and <br />Variances — Resolution No. 4473 <br />Peterson moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Resolution No. 4473 granting a <br />Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21 to allow <br />grading within 5 feet of a lot line, and a Variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and <br />Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to permit construction of a new residence. <br />Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br />4. #2557 Daniel and Judith McAthie, 1449 Bay Ridge Road — Variance Review <br />Weinberger reported that the applicants were granted variances in January for the addition of a <br />second story to their existing house. The approval was for an addition to the existing house. <br />Staff found on a recent visit that the house had been removed from its foundation and placed the <br />Building Permit on hold. The building contractor found that part of the foundation would have <br />to be replaced and that many of the joists were rotted and should be replaced to ensure <br />compliance with the State Building Code. The applicants intend to use most of the existing <br />• foundation and would construct the new house based on the plans approved by the Council per • <br />Resolution No. 4416. <br />Weinberger requested direction from the Council to either: 1) permit construction to continue <br />based on the intent of the variance approvals understanding that no exterior alterations are <br />proposed for this plan, which would limit the size of the house and staff were comfortable with <br />the plan; 2) advise the applicant to submit a new Land Use Application which would require <br />variances to be granted for new construction, and either granting a variance for lakeshore setback <br />again, or requiring the building be moved to meet the average lakeshore setback, which could <br />change the exterior of the house. <br />Mr. McAthie stated his intent is to only do what they originally proposed. His contractor stated <br />that they did not expect to have to remove the house, but as they worked they discovered more <br />and more rotted floor joists. He stated that he has to warranty his products for ten years and can't <br />build on a bad foundation. <br />Mayor Jabbour stated that there are large differences between this application and the house on <br />County Road 15, which had a similar sequence of events, but also included structure within the <br />0 -75 foot zone. Barrett asked that staff draft a resolution listing the reasons why it is appropriate <br />to allow the applicant to proceed with plan 1. <br />Flint moved, and Sansevere seconded, to allow the applicant to continue based on plans <br />• approved by the Council per Resolution 4416 and direct staff to prepare a • <br />resolution to present to the Council at their next meeting for adoption listing the <br />2 <br />