Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 11, 2013 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  Page 15 of 24   <br />   <br /> <br />(6. #12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS, LLC, 4731 <br />NORTH SHORE DRIVE – VARIANCE – RESOLUTION – TABLED, Continued) <br /> <br />Colson stated the unimproved street is causing the bluff line to turn and go up and is not actually affecting <br />the distance to the lake. The proposed residence is very consistent with what was approved in 2006. <br />Colson stated if they were held to those restraints of the bluff line, the property would be basically <br />unbuildable and result in an unreasonable small home considering the established driveway. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the driveway will be widened. <br /> <br />Colson indicated they will be using a shared entrance. The existing driveway for 4725 North Shore is <br />already set, which sets the elevations and location of the garage. <br /> <br />Levang commented the driveway appears to be pretty steep. <br /> <br />Colson noted the driveway is steeper but that it is a poured concrete driveway that is heated. <br /> <br />Levang asked what his thoughts are about the engineering. <br /> <br />Colson stated they will be working hand-in-hand with the City on the engineering issues and that they <br />will be addressing as many as possible before construction commences. Colson indicated they have been <br />working regularly with Staff and that they have made revisions to their plans to best meet the <br />recommendations of the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />McMillan indicated the City has a concern given the bluff failure on the adjacent property. <br /> <br />Colson pointed out the location of the bluff line on the subject property. Colson indicated this bluff is not <br />necessarily a bluff that could fail into the lake but is located more to the side of the unimproved street. <br /> <br />Bremer noted the bluff setback does offer some protection to the residence in the event of a bluff failure. <br />Bremer commented this is an example of a hardship lot and that the only thing that has really changed is <br />the survey. Bremer indicated she is okay with proceeding with the project as long as there is a strict eye <br />kept on the engineering issues. <br /> <br />Colson stated they did stick with the original or as close to the original plan as much as possible. The <br />building envelope is essentially the same as what was passed in 2006 for those same reasons. <br /> <br />McMillan asked what the building encroachment line is. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that was the direction given by the Planning Commission and that the building <br />encroachment line is not a setback but is merely a reference point. The 20-foot bluff impact zone is the <br />dotted line and the yellow line is the 30-foot setback. <br /> <br />Curtis noted they are at 15 percent structural coverage with the house and deck. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted the property is over 10,000 square feet, so the City goes with a 15 percent structural <br />coverage number. <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 02/25/2013 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 02/11/2013 <br />[Page 15 of 24]