Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, January 27, 2003 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #02 -2753 WESLEY BYRNE, Continued) <br />White believed, while both sides were at fault, nothing would be gained by cobbling <br />house together. He felt the applicant was making great improvements to the property. <br />Gaffron maintained that the issue was one of encroachment versus hardcover. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if the applicant would be encroaching further than before. <br />Gaffron indicated that the encroachment was not closer but higher mass would be added. <br />Murphy asked what would be gained by requiring the applicant to jog in his second story. <br />Mayor Peterson asked what the neighbor's opinion had been. <br />Gaffron reiterated that the neighbor was in support of the design as submitted. With regard <br />to the jog, Gaffron pointed out that the City requires a 10' side yard setback. The question <br />here is a feeling of visual density, of too much house for the lot, which the Planning <br />Commission wrestled in it's last meeting. <br />• Murphy inquired what the plans showed in the original drawings. <br />Gaffron stated that, while Mr. Byrne has the original drawings, which were approved with <br />him, the volume is what wasn't apparent in March 2002. <br />Commissioner Rahn stated that he had been present at both the original approval and the <br />review and had he been aware of the vertical encroachment with the original submittal, the <br />Commission would have likely not allowed it. <br />Mayor Peterson asked if this plan was what was originally approved. <br />Gaffron confirmed this, acknowledging that the vertical side setbacks were not considered. <br />White stated that, in his opinion, the City approved this house and he found it difficult to <br />change the requirements now. <br />Nygard pointed out that massing usually is dealt with as a matter of sunlight or views and <br />how massing impacts neighbors. In this case, he felt massing was irrelevant. <br />Mayor Peterson and White concurred. <br />Attorney Barrett indicated that one basis the City could use to allow the original plan to go <br />forward would be to say they are simply going to reaffirm the original motion, versus <br />• granting a new variance that would make future applications difficult to distinuish the <br />difference. <br />PAGE 5 of 28 <br />