05-10-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 26, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. 7. #04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS AND PHIL FISK, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD - Continued 3. Building setback variance to allow a north side setback of 24’ when 35’ is required and 24’ currently exists. 4. Hardcover variance to permit 56% hardcover in the 500 ’-1000 ’ zone when 35% is normally allowed. 5. Conditional use penn't in order to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant. While much of the Planning Commission discussion of March 15"’ centered on whether the applicant should be granted the variance needed to incorporate a drive-through, ultimately, the Commission approved the alternate site plan, which didn’t include a drive-through. For clarification, Sanscvcrc asked what the hardcover would be with and without the proposed drive-through. Gundlach pointed out that with the drive-through the hardcover is 56%; whereas, without the proposed drive-through the hardcover is 35% and a variance is unnecessary. Valcnus stated that their current drive-through plan uses pavers instead of blacktop, since they arc permeable, requires no curb and gutter, and is therefotc narrower than the ongmal dnve-through plan. She indicated that this plan would rcllect 45% hardcover, thus allowing them to retain more grcenspace and making the drive-through less conspicuous. Sansevere asked the applicant w hat heir hardship was to justify a hardcover variance. Valerius insisted that the site was a peculiar property, and the neighbor was allowed 50% hardcover. Sansevere asked w hat the hardship to their land w as. versus that of the neighbor. Valerius refened to other properties across the street which were granted greater hardcovers. Mayor Peterson stated that she did not support the neighbor’s hardcover requests, nor would she support theirs. Fisk stated that the hardship to their property is that they do not have parking close to their business, and in fact, have an easement and pay to use thr shared parking behind the residence. Since they only have two spots adjacent to their site, Fisk staled that they would like to give customers better access. Attorney Barrett concluded that in a conversion from residential to commercial, the City can require that all requirements be met. He pointed out that the property may have worked as a single family residence, but may not be appropnate as a business. Gaffron inteijcctcd, stating that it w'ould be a hardship if adequate parking was not available; however, they do have the ability to use the shared parking lot. PAGE 6 of 12