Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 26, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />PAGE 11 of 32 <br />*4. #07-3317 DAN HESSBURG WITH HESSBURG HOMES, 774 TONKAWA ROAD, <br />AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5694 <br /> <br />Murphy moved, Rahn seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5694, a Resolution Granting <br />Variances for the Property Located at 774 Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br /> <br />*5. #07-3322 ROBERT AND JORDANNA WILLIAMS, 845 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH – <br />VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 5695 <br /> <br />Murphy moved, Rahn seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5695, a Resolution Granting <br />Variances for the Property Located at 845 Willow Drive South. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> <br /> <br />6. #07-3323 STRUCTURES UNLIMITED ON BEHALF OF JUDSON AND ALEYA <br />CHAMPLIN, 210 BIG ISLAND – VARIANCES <br /> <br />Ross Langhans, Structures Unlimited, and Judson and Aleya Champlin, Applicants, were present. <br /> <br />Turner stated the applicants are requesting lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct an <br />addition to the rear of the existing seasonal dwelling as well as add a second story to it. A foundation <br />type variance is requested to allow the addition to be constructed on post footings rather than a <br />perimeter foundation. The retaining wall portion of this application was approved by Council on <br />November 13, 2007. This portion of the application was delayed because the applicants were out of the <br />country and they wished to be present when this portion of the application was heard by the Council. <br /> <br />At their October meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the <br />variances subject to the pitch of the roof being reduced to 10:12 and a landscaping plan for screening <br />being submitted for Staff review prior to the City Council meeting. <br /> <br />Rather than reduce the roof height, the applicant has reduced the height of the side walls ten inches. <br />This is the same amount the reduction in roof pitch would have reduced the peak height. The applicant <br />also increased the roof overhang to two feet, which lowered the height of the eave line slightly. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 12/10/07 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 11/26/07 [Page 11 of 32]