09-12-1988 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1988 • ZONING FILE #1275 - DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED the possibilities should the entire house and foundation be removed. The applicant expressed further reasons why he felt the setback variances should be granted. He would not be encroaching upon his neighbors. He was originally misrepresented as to the condition of the existing house and just what portions of the lot were his. Mayor Grabek said that they needed to address only the issue at hand, not the history of the property. That issue was that the applicants were unable to save the existing house. He was understanding of the fact that there was not much that could have been done to save the house, but nonetheless, it was entirely removed. The applicant referred to the Resolution, under the Conclusions section, paragraph #3. Mr. Johnson noted that there were no specific indications as to the amount of foundation that he had to retain. City Administrator.Bernhardson asked Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron for clarification as to how much wall remained and what would be removed. Gaffron replied that the foundation yet standing would need to be removed. There would be no way to support the walls while pouring footings underneath them. Mr. Johnson disagreed and stated that the wall • could be braced while the'footings were poured. Mr. Johnson went on to say that moving the house to meet the side setback would require the removal of a 150' Poplar tree. He had the house designed so that it would fit the lot. Councilmember Goetten stated that she appreciated that, but now they were dealing with a far more serious issue than the setbacks and that was the poor condition of the existing foundation. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be a lift station and well that would interfere with relocating the position of the house. Councilmember Callahan reminded applicant that he had agreed to relocate the proposed house if none of the existing house could be saved. Mr. Johnson stated that he made that agreement, but did not have all of the facts at that time. Councilmember Callahan stated that neither the house nor the foundation of the original house exists, therefore the applicants must meet the 0- 75'. lakeshore setback and 10' side setback. Applicant stated that he did not want to change the drainage of the lot. Moving the house 10' would not change the drainage of the house, but it would cause the removal of-the tree. Gaffron indicated that the current proposal places the new house within 10' of the tree. Councilmember Callahan inquired as to how far back the house would have to be moved. Applicant replied, "8 feet, if I build a deck, none of the house is sitting in the 0 -75." There is only a portion of the deck which encroaches into that zone. Councilmember Goetten stated that she had no problem with the • proposed deck, but reiterated her point that in a case such as this, the City requests that all setbacks be adhered to. 13