01-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINliTKS OF THE ORONO CITY COliNCTL MEETINC; Monday, December 13, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.ni. (9. n04-S052 EMC i'OGSIROM, 2618 CASCO POlXf ROAD, Continued) hardship. I hc City has generally established that for very small lots the inmimiim reasonable garage/lioiise footprint is 1.500 square feel. It is likely impossible toeonsiruci a 1.500 square foot house on this site within the 25 percent limit. Therefore, Staff will conceptually support a 1.500 .square foot home with minimal decks, sidewalk and driveway needed to support it. but Staff feels ibis can Ik* done in the range of 30 percent hardcover, not 36 percent. Staff is not convinced that the third garage stall is necessary. Curtis stated a letter was received today from 1 ,molhy Keane, attorney for the applicant, and has Ix-en distributed to the Council. Gaffron addressed the City Council concerning the size of Ihc house and footprint. Gaffron staled the lot is sloped towards the lake and has appro.ximately an 8-foot difference from the lakeside of the proposed house to the street side of the proposed house, would ideally accommodate a walk-out and a two and a half story house without exceeding any height limits and without excess grading. Gaffron staled a footprint of 1,500 square feel with a two-stall garage could be constructed. If the applicant would like to retain the three-car garage, the first story could be reduced by 200 square feet, for a final square footage of 4,700 square feet. fJaffron indicated the shape of this lot leiuls itself to a home up to 55-60’ in width and also allow s for a home to be angled so that it lakes the best advantage of lake views. Additionally, the home could be placed with the garage at the 30’ minimum .setback from the road to mimmi/e dt ivew ay hardcover, fhe additional area of 0-75’ zone that is non-contiguous is a benefit to this projK'ity but cannot be consulered as creating a hardship situation. No hardcover credit should be accuied to this excess l..keshore square IbtMage. .Sanscvcrc inquired why the applicant is so reluctant to agree to 1,500. Sansevere noted he iK-rsonally would not agree to anything above 1.500. Vogstrom staled he is unclear alxnit some of the items in StaiTs leport. V»)gstrom indicated page three of the memorandum lists a couple of properties that are smaller than his lot, both of w hich w ere granted a larger footprint. Vogstrom pointed out part of the basis for the approval mi those two properties was the fad tlnil they uie UKated on a busy road Vogstrom noted his property is also locaterl on a very busy road. Vogstrom stated he meets all required setbacks, with the house being located 85’ liom the lake, and that he IS reipiesting the additional hardcover to accommodate a thud stall on the garage. Vogstrom indicated he has reduced ilie si/c of the |iroj)o.sed residence in order to have a three-slall garage. Vogstrom stated he IS not sure how the city planner airived at the square footage for the house. McMillan statcil the planner included the garage in the calculation. .Sansevetc staled the (’ity Ctuincil needs to Ik* consistent with their approvals and that they may set a piecedent if they approve the additional hardcover. Vogstrom stated m his view the Gouncil would be consistent in granting the 34.5 jK-rcent hardcover given the other two lots that weic gianted higher hardcover. Vogstiom stated <><» |H*rcent of his lot is located w ithin the 0*75’. w ith one of the examples of hardship cited in the memorandum being the tact that 50 IKicent of the lot was located in the 0-75’ zone. X'ogslrom stated in his opinion .some of the haidship criteria found in the other two applications apply to his lot. PAGE 5