Laserfiche WebLink
. I . <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 14, 2007 <br />• 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #07 -3259 Lake Country Builders, Continued) it <br />2. Hardcover: 75 -250 foot zone; 27.4 percent, proposed where 30.3 percent exists and 25 percent is <br />allowed; 0 -75 foot zone; 7.72 percent proposed where 9.0 percent exists and 0 percent is allowed; <br />3. Side setback for existing garage attachment and upward expansion: 9.1 foot existing where 10 <br />foot is required; <br />4. Variance to Section 78 -1432, Accessory S"ctures. The applicants would like to retain the <br />nonconforming pool which is located partially within the 0 -75 foot zone. <br />Gaffron requested the Council discuss the following issues: <br />1. Whether the applicants should be granted a ihardcover variance to be allowed to keep the pool, <br />given that it is nonconforming and partially in the 0 -75 foot zone, and that it is the primary reason <br />for excess hardcover on the site. <br />2. Whether a hardcover variance should be granted for the 75 -250 foot zone, given that this is <br />considered as a total rebuild on a lot that is nearly conforming in width and has a substantial <br />hardcover allotment for the 75 -250 foot zone. <br />3. Whether there is any issue with attaching t le house to the existing garage that is slightly too close <br />• to the lot line. <br />Murphy asked if there is a considerable amount of hardcover around the pool.. <br />Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the hardcover arlound the pool. <br />Murphy inquired whether the pool was poured in place. <br />Smolek stated it was poured in. <br />Murphy inquired when the pool was built. <br />Smolek stated the pool has existed since 1984. <br />Rahn stated this plan is a major improvement over v rhat has been previously proposed and what currently <br />exists. Rahn noted the new house meets the setbacks and results in less hardcover overall on the lot. <br />White concurred that the revised plans are a major improvement over what exists. <br />Gaffron stated it is his belief there are a variety of f Ictors that go into the pool not being located out of the <br />0 -75 foot area, including the erosion of the lakeshore and an incorrect measuring from the edge of the <br />pool and not the patio that surrounds it. Gaffron noted the applicants have the right to replace in kind. <br />Bremer commented she understands why the applic'nts would like to retain the pool but that she would <br />like to see some reduction in the hardcover around the pool. <br />FADE 11 <br />