06-24-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 10, 2019 7:00 o'clock p.m. Crosby asked if there is an existing garage on the existing home. Oakden indicated there is an attached garage and the detached garage was built two years ago. Crosby asked what the practical difficulty is. Johnson stated the practical difficulty is that the code does not make any sense, particularly in this instance. The applicant can put another detached garage right next door to this one that is ten feet from it but the Code says it cannot be attached. Johnson asked what the maximum is. Oakden indicated this lot size, the applicant can have one building that does not exceed 1,200 square feet and then he can have a total accessory structure massing of 2,400 square feet. The applicant could technically have three more buildings as long as they do not exceed 2,400 square feet. Johnson asked how big the existing detached garage is. Oakden indicated it is 11,52 square feet. Johnson stated this comes down to the topography, and that the applicant has received approval from his HOA and supporting letters from the neighbors. If he was to add a detached garage on the side, it would start getting into some topography issues. Oakden stated there are some topography issues to the south as it moves back to the rear but the side setbacks would be okay. Johnson asked if there can be a condition placed on the property restricting future garage space. Mattick stated at the Staff meeting the initial question was, can the City place conditions on a variance where the City can prohibit something that would otherwise be allowed. After conducting some research, Mattick stated he believes the City can. If the applicant gets a side yard variance for 5 feet where 10 feet is normally required and the applicant would like a 35 -foot house, the Council can say you only get 30 -foot house, which is taking away something that otherwise would be allowed. Mattick stated in this instance the Council has to decide whether they should impose conditions. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting 1,432 square feet. Mattick noted that would take away 942 square feet. Walsh noted the condition would not preclude him from coming back at some point in the future. Mattick stated the Code contemplates 2,400 total square feet, so to get a variance for one building, the question is whether there is a strong nexus to strip him of that extra square footage that would be allowed. Walsh stated there may not be a true practical difficulty and the question is whether the code is something the City should revisit. Page 2 of 4