Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Moaday, Jaac 13,200S <br />7:00 o ’clock pjn. <br />(005>3111 Water StrocC Hobms, Coatiaacd) <br />Gafron stated every portion that has foundation and floor has been included but that the second story is <br />not counted as additional footprint. <br />Murphy inquired why the underground garage portion is included in the footprint. <br />Gaffron stated it is considered structure from a building code perspective. Gaffron stated the two main <br />reasons for the oversize accessory structure ordiruuice deals with the appearance of the structure and the <br />future use of the structure. <br />White stated he is willing to agree to a smaller footprint because a portion of the building is located <br />undersround. <br />Murphy inquired what die City was attenqiting to accomplish widi the oversized accessory structure <br />ordinanc e. <br />Gaffron stated the ordinance addresses the size of the building and the total number of square feet that <br />could be constructed on a lot, with the future use of the structure also being a concern. <br />Murphy inquired whether the lower level could be considered a second building. <br />McMillan noted they are requesting more than what is allowed for this size lot. <br />Carlson stated the variance is necessary if the outlot is not considered in the calculation for land area. <br />Gaffron stated the ordinance does not address whether an outlot and/or wetlands should be included in the <br />calculation of land area. Gaffron stated if the Council concludes that the primary reason for the ordinance <br />is the visual impact and that the wetlands are a mitigating fsctor, the Council could find justification for <br />granting a variance. <br />Carlson inquired whether tfte outlot could be combined. <br />Gaffron stated normally the City does not give credit for outlots. Gaffron stated this portion of the <br />property was platted as an outlot in order to achieve a 200-foot lot width along Fox Sheet. <br />Barrett stated as a condition of the variance, it would be necessary for the property owner to agree that the <br />two lots would be held in common and exclusive ownership. <br />Carlson stated that would not be a problem. <br />Barrett inquired whether another driveway access would be granted onto Fox. <br />Carlson indicated no, noting that the outlot can only serve this property. <br />Gaffron concurred that there is no other property that could be served by the outlot Gaffrtm stated the <br />question then becomes whether wetlands should be included in the calculation for land area. <br />m FAGEt <br />i ' <br />lis—iteaMfi— rarkMkd