03-22-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. McMillan was cognizant of Gaffron’s statements and agreed that the City must adhere as closely to the code as possible when it comes to rebuilds. She found it diflicult to justify 38% hardcover when staff had built in a hardcover credit to the driveway within their recommendation. McMillan reminded the Council that the City needs to adhere to the limitations put into place as it continues to redevelop. Murphy pointed out that the difference between 33% and 38% is merely 800 s.f. Having examined the exhibits and the site, he found it difficult to determine what could be removed from the home or driveway to bnng the hardcover to within 33%. Gundlach stated that more would have to be removed from a limited patio or dnveway, since the applicants had maxed the house. Mr. Switz stated that the reality is that the precedent is already out there. He maintained that this is a unique property and that their proposed improvements will be significant, not only reducing the structural coverage to 15%, but also remo\ing virtually all structure within the 0-75’ zone. He pointed out that they have attempted to work with staff to get a minimal driveway and apron, while maintaining ample space for the home. Switz indicated that hardships exist, as admitted by staff, and accepted by the Planning Commission 6/0 to warrant the amount of hardcover proposed in this application. He pointed out that the Planning Commission fought thru many of these same issues faced by the City Council and came to their unanimous conclusion that this was reasonable. If the home was moved closer to the road to reduce the amount of driveway hardcover this would not make a better situation either. Switz maintained that the City should take the magnitude of the proposed improvements into consideration along with all of the other factors, since the home wnll be in conformancy to all but the hardcover condition. He believed that this would be the most consistent conclusion the City could reach, given the other trade-offs, especially since it is the preservation and protection of the lake which takes precedence to all else. Murphy questioned whether the property would indeed be improving the 0-75’ zone situation significantly. Gundlach stated that a significant portion of the current home and deck falls within the 0*75' zone. Murphy maintained that, since the applicants would be clearing out over 2,000 s.f. of hardco\’cr in the 0-75’ zone, and that the variance request generally is impacting the driveway on the street side, he would side with White and Mayor Peterson. Murphy stated that based on the shape of the lot. and the fact that his biggest concern involves the lakeside, he would not wish to cause any safety problems on the streetside by imposing further limitations. Sansevere pointed out that, by Code, applicants do not get ‘bonus points’ for removals within the 0-75’ setback zone. While he wished to give the applicants some leeway to sec this proposal to fhiition, he asked if the Cit>’ had a legal obligation to the contrary. Mrs. Switz indicated that during their first \isits to the Planning Commission, they were told by staff and the Commission that if they could get the structural cover down to 15%, they would be given adequate dnveway. PAGE 5 of 16