Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 13, 1986 <br />#983 WALTER H. PEMBERTON <br />3580 NORTH SHORE DRIVE <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #1903 <br />U <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request to <br />remove an existing cabin and replace with a new home and <br />tuck -under garage, which requires a lot area and lot <br />width variance in addition to hardcover, side setback, <br />and average setback variances. <br />Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained the <br />proposed plan and Planning Commission's recommendations. <br />He noted that the hardcover variance in the 0 -75' would <br />be a maximum of 20% with 23' encroachment of structure <br />within the 75' setback. <br />Councilmember Hammerel felt that anything on this <br />property would be an improvement. <br />Walter and Marilyn Pemberton were present for this <br />matter. Mr. Pemberton noted that the adjacent <br />neighbors, Fegers, were in support of the proposed <br />plans. <br />It was moved by Councilmember Grabek, seconded by Acting <br />Mayor Adams, to adopt Resolution #1903 granting <br />variances as submitted. Motion, Ayes 3, Nays 1. <br />Councilmember Frahm voted nay stating there was too much <br />hardcover. <br />#988 JAMES E. MERTES <br />3237 CASCO CIRCLE <br />VARIANCE <br />RESOLUTION #1904 <br />Applicants James and Ruthmary Mertes were present for <br />this matter. Also present were Douglas Smith, current <br />owner of the property and his attorney, Jeff Brauchle. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson explained the request for <br />a renewal of lot area and width variance. He noted that <br />this item was tabled at the December 9th Council meeting <br />pending a survey showing the location of the adjacent <br />house to the south and the revision of the proposed <br />resolution stipulating a 20' setback between the <br />proposed house and the house to the south. <br />Attorney Jeff Brauchle stated that he found no ordinance <br />which requires a 20' setback between the houses and felt <br />the applicants should not be burdened because the <br />adjacent house is only 6' from the lot line. He noted <br />that this is an important issue because it aeffects the <br />size of house that can be built. He noted that he <br />7 <br />