01-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, December 13, 2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. m4-30S2 ERIC IOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO FOIST ROAD, Continuedl Vogstrom stated even with a 1,500 square foot footprint, minirrum size deck, sidewalk, driveway, and a two-stall garage, he would still be at 32.5 percent hardcover. Vogstrom stated the difference he is proposing ts two percent, which is the difference between a tw o-car garage and a three-car garage. Gaffron stated he is not in agrcenient w’lth most of the comments of the applicant. Gaffron stated the property located at 1690 Shadywood is located on a busy county road and requires a backup apron. Gaffron stated he docs not believe that the traffic on Casco Point Road requires a backoip apron. In addition, the second hardship found for the 1690 Shadywood property was the fact that the location of the adjacent homes would reduce lake views causing a tunnel effect. Third, the non-optimum lot shape analysis results in justification for a 289 square foot variance. Gaffron e.x ilained an optimum lot shape analysis formula was utilized in the Loftier and Sw itz ca.ses, which was not utilized prior to 2004. In Staffs view, this formula has some inherent weaknesses and has contributed in the past year to e.xccssive hardcover allowances compared to those granted to similar lots in previous years. Staff is reluctant to continue using the current optimum lot shape analysis method as a basis for hardcover variances, as it suggests that all lots not meeting the optimum shape should be allowed excess hardcover, which translates to an automatic variance level for almost all c.\isting lots. Gaffron indicated Item 3A illustrates the footprints that were allowed in the past six years for various properties given their lot area and the amount of the building pad located w ithin the 75'-250’ area and the approved hardcover. Gaffron stated based on Exhibits 3B and 3C, in his opinion the Sw itz ajiplication is an anomaly and is not consistent with the building footprints typically granted by the City. Gaffron indicated he disagrees with the concept that the peninsula found on the Vogstrom lot should be a factor in determining the amount of hardcover that should be allowed on this lot. Gaffron indicated the Sw itz lot is located on a much busier road than the Vogstrom property and that hardships tw o and four do not apply to the V'ogstrom property. Gaffron stated approval of hardcover at 34.5 percent would not be consistent with past approvals by the Council. Gaffion pointed out the hardcover reductions being proposed by the applicant are primarily being reduced within the city right-of-way, which is where the majority of the existing driveway is located. Gaffron noted 270 square feet of hardcover is located within the right-of-w ay and not on the property. (iaffron stated Exhibit 3A provides information for the last six >ears for lot area, existing and approved 75’-250' zones, and lot coverage. Gaffron stated properties that are slightly bigger have received a slightly bigger footprint but not as much hardcover. Gaffron slated an average is 30 percent and that 1500 square feet in his opinion is appropriate for this 1 it. Sanscvcrc nquircd whether the City is being consistent with the 1,500 square feet requirement. Gaffron stated the applicant feels two applica'u- , w ere treated differently in the past year that were not consistent with the City's past practice. Gaffion stated the question is whether those should be looked at as a precedent or whether they should be considered anomalies. Gaffron staled in his |wrsiKciive the Sw itz application was an anomaly, with the Lofller application having an issue with location of the house toward the street reducing lake view's and causing a tunnel PAGE 6