09-08-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 ( #7) #2276 JULIE AND BRENT WALTON, 2405 DUNWOODY AVENUE - VARIANCES -RESOLUTION NO 3956 Mr. and Mrs. Walton were present. Van Zomeren passed out photos to the Council of the property. She indicated that the application is a request to build a new residence on a vacant lot. The property is substandard in size at 12,754 s.f. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted 4:3 for a reduction in structural coverage to meet 15 %. This has been accomplished. Language has also been added to provide an easement to the City for sanitary sewer due to a change in location. The water line off Shoreline Drive also has to be relocated. The applicant has agreed to these changes. Van Zomeren reported that a preliminary plat review from 1996 for a lot line rearrangement when under the ownership of Mr. Oberhauser was approved with the condition that the lots be combined and a shared driveway be used. The application was not followed through on by Oberhauser. Lots A., B. and C are now under control by three parties, McNamara, Larson, and Walton. Oberhauser is listed as taxpayer but not owner. The Waltons have demonstrated interest in purchasing Lot C. They will require a hardcover variance in the 75 -250' setback. A portion of the hardship is due to the direction of the Planning Commission for location of a turnaround in the driveway from Dunwoody Avenue. The hardcover would total 41.3% where 25% is allowed. No is hardship will exist in the 0 -75' setback. Mr. Walton reported that the Planning Commission required them to provide the sewer easement, new water line, and new driveway. The hardcover variance is required due to the lot's long and narrow size at 50'x276' average for the driveway. Jabbour indicated he had spoken with the applicant earlier and provided the Walton's with some background information. He said the Council had recommended the lots be combined as they were substandard in size. It was then found that this did not occur. Jabbour felt it was important for the applicants to understand what has occurred and noted it in no way affects them or their application. Jabbour said he was very surprised to find out that Oberhauser did not follow through as determined noting the length of time it took to bring the application before the Council at that time. Kelley questioned whether Lots A, B, and C would be considered buildable if the previous plan had not been reviewed. Gafiron said he believed that each of the three lots were assessed for sewer. At least two, if not three, of the lots had houses on them at one time or another. Gaffron said each lot is substandard and would require lot area and lot width variances. 7