06-08-1998 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 8,1998 ( #10) 92363 WILLIAM BOCKMANN,1130 LOMA LINDA AVENUE - VARIANCES Mr. Bockmann and his son were present. Van Zomeren explained that this application was for multiple variances to tear down and rebuild a residence. At their May 26 meeting, Council approved lot area and average lakeshore setback variances, and denied hardcover and side yard adjacent to street variances. The applicant was directed to maintain hardcover at 25% by eliminating the third stall garage and driveway leading to it. The applicant modified his proposal and is seeking Council approval. Barrett confirmed that a Council Member who voted in the affirmative at the May 26 meeting would have to move to reconsider the application. Goetten stated she was unprepared to vote on the new proposal as it was not included with information prior to the meeting. • Peterson moved, Jabbour seconded, to reconsider Application #2363 requesting variances for the property located at 1130 Loma Linda Avenue. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 2. Goetten and Flint opposed. Goetten stated it was not proper to bring changes to a meeting without review. She suggested tabling 40 the review. Van Zomeren continued that the resolution in the staff report was drafted to maintain a 35' side yard setback adjacent to street and hardcover at 25% or less. The current plan meets 25% hardcover but to do that, there is an 81/2 encroachment into the side yard adjacent to street. The average lakeshore setback is reduced from 8' to 5'. A lot area variance is still required. Jabbour reiterated that designs should not take place during a Council meeting. A plan should be submitted prior to the meeting. Council acted on the previous proposal at the applicant's request. Bockmann responded that he was doing his own design. They have done what Council has asked and are now under 25% hardcover. Jabbour and Peterson agreed that they were not prepared to act on the current proposal. Flint questioned if there was a problem with the time limit. Barrett responded that a count should be made from the time of the original application and if there is a problem, staff should send a letter of extension because of the reconsideration of the application. 16 •