02-14-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO Cl I'Y COUNCIL MEEl INC Monday, December 13, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. not meeting the optimum shape should be allowed excess hardcover, which translates to an automatic variance level for almost all existing lots. Gaffron indicated Item 3A illustrates the footprints that were allowed in tlv^ past six years for various properties given their lot area and the amount of the building pad located within the 75 ’- 250’ area and the approved hardcover. GalTron stated based on Hxhibils 3B and 3C, in his opinion the Switz application Is an anomaly and is not consistent with the building footprints typically granted by the City. GalTron indicated he disagrees with the concept that the peninsula found on the Vogstrom lot should b" a factor in determining the amount of hardcover that should be allowed on this lot. Gaffron indicated the Switz lot is located on a much busier road than the Vogstrom property and that hardships two and four do not apply to the Vogstrom property. Gaffron stated approval of hardcover at 34.5 percent would not Ik* consistent with past approvals by the Council. Gaffron 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-way and not on the property. GalTron slatetl nxhibit 3A provides information for the last six years for lot area, existing and approved 75 ’-250’ zones, and lot coverage. Cianron staled projKiiics that are shghlly bigger have received a slightly bigger fcMUjirinl but not as much hardcover. Gaffron stated an average Is 30 percent and that 1500 square feet in his opinion is apiuopriale for this lot. Sansevere inquired whether the City is Iving cruisislenl with the 1,500 square feet requirement, Gaffron staled the applieant feels two applications were treated dilTereully in the past year that were not consistent with the ('ity’s past practice. Gaffron sl.ited the question is w hether those should be looked at as a preeedcat or whether they should be considererl amunalies. 4 \