Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 9, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />*6. #06 -3224 MICHAEL SHARRATT OF SHARRA.TT DESIGN & COMPANY ON BEHALF <br />OF THOMAS AND REBECCA LOWE, 3295 CARMAN ROAD — VARIANCE — RESOLUTION <br />NO. 5518 <br />Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5518, a Resolution granting, <br />variances for the property located at 3295 Carman Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />7. #06 -3231 WILLIAM S. DAMPIER, 3550 IVY PLACE — VARIANCE <br />William S. Dampier, Applicant, was present. <br />Turner stated the applicant is requesting side setback and lot coverage variances to allow the constriction <br />of an addition to the lakeside of the residence to be located 3.4 feet from the south property line when a <br />10 -foot setback is required. The lot coverage variance is requesting 17.4 percent when the maximum is <br />15 percent. The applicant has revised his plans slightly and is now requesting 16 percent structural <br />coverage. <br />is <br />In 2000, the applicant was granted hardcover and side setback variances for construction of an addition to <br />the street side of the house and reconstruction of the second story. The original house was constructed <br />with a north side setback of 2.9 feet to 3.4 feet. The current request would allow construction of a semi- <br />circular room on the second floor on the lakeside of the property and a one -foot cantilevered extension of <br />the first floor on the lakeside of the property. The applicant constructed the first floor cantilevered • <br />extension and two feet of the second story addition in 2005 not in compliance with the prior approvals. <br />The 326 square foot addition would place the property 306 square feet over the structural lot coverage <br />maximum. <br />The Planning Commission voted 4 -1 to recommend approval, with Planning Staff recommending denial <br />of the application based on the amount of structural lot coverage. Turner stated the cantilevered area <br />exists because of a misunderstanding by the applicant. <br />Dampier stated he was originally granted permission to build 480 square feet of deck, and in the original . <br />application, he attempted to stay under the 15 percent structural coverage so that the house would be an <br />existing nonconforming structure. Dampier stated the 17.4 percent structural coverage is comparable to <br />the neighbors adjoining this property and that the three lots are all 50 -foot lots and the residences are <br />similar in size. <br />Dampier gave some history regarding his original application. Dampier stated he is proposing a <br />compromise that had been struck prior to getting the original permit back in 2000 with Gaffron and <br />Building Inspector Lyle. Dampier stated he proposed an addition toward the lake. But Gaffron said he <br />would not be able to approve that and instead recommended a different average setback line. Dampier <br />stated he submitted the plans for reconstructing the lake side of the house to the building inspector. After <br />a month or so the building inspector hadn't finished his review of the plans but he was verbally told that <br />he could proceed forward with the plans. Approximately one month later he was told that Ire could not <br />build the house as depicted on his plans and that he was to stop construction immediately. Dampier stated <br />the only way the cantilever could be removed would be to remove a good portion of the structure since <br />the timbers are all interconnected with each other. • <br />PAGE 4of10 <br />