08-25-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 25,1997 • ( #1 I - #2282 Tom Terry for Valerie Peterson - Continued) Gaffron reported that the public hearing was to review an application requiring Iot area and lot width variances for construction of a new residence to replace one that was destroyed by fire. The 26,292 s.f property is in the LR 1B Zoning District, where 43,560 s.f is required. Lot width of 85' is substandard to the 140' required. The survey shows the garage and driveway and proposed house. The residence will meet the I Y side setback on the north and be at 12' to the south. Setbacks are met. Hardcover in the 75- 254' setback needs to be confirmed at 30 0/6. Gaffron believes the 0.04% overage is resolvable. Staff recommended approval. Tom Terry said he thought the hardcover requirement was met as area was removed from the driveway. Jabbour asked that this occur. Terry indicated that the old house did not meet the requirement. There were no public continents, and Jabbour closed the public hearing. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3951. Vote_ Ayes 5, Nays 0. Terry asked the Council to waive the variance fee. Jabbour said this would require review and verification of the occurrences. He asked Moorse whether the facts would justify the waiver. Moorse said there was a delay in determining the need for a variance, but, the fact remains that variances are required. Jabbour opined that the applicant should pay the fee for the variance. Terry said the delay cost about two weeks of additional time and cost noting the variance fee of $225. Jabbour indicated that any waiver of the fee would require a thorough investigation and did not support the waiver. Peterson, Goetten, Flint, and Kelley supported the variance fee. No motion was made for a variance waiver. ( #12) VARIANCE FOR DAVID AND JODI RAHN,1385 REST POINT ROAD David Rahn was present. Gappa reported that the variance was previously approved for remodeling and addition of the subject residence. The building inspector brought concerns forward regarding the work in progress. The existing cabin is located in the 0 -75' setback, and the variance was for an addition to square off the residence and add a second story. It called for the residence to be slab -on- grade. Floor plans were shown as well as pictures as the property was viewed at the time of inspection. It was felt that the amount of removals was more extensive than projected, the building was jacked up, and more courses of block were • being added to the foundation. 11