12-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r»4i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 22,2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (5. M4-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, Continued) Gaffron pointed out that, while the average lakeshore setback variance is warranted, since no views are impacted, it is the relationship to the area within the 75-250’ zone that ther; is a hardship question. Since the lagoon impacts the 75-250’ zone, using an optimum lot shape analysis would suggest that 32.5% hardcover would be allotted for this property. A bigger issue comes to light when examining the 1,500 s.f. minimal house measurement. If there is an inherent hardship, Sansevere questioned what staff would recommend. Gaffron asked the Council to determine what they believed to be a reasonable hardship, since staff believed that 1.884 s.f. is the warranted size it should be. Since the proposal seemed to be a mere 300 s.f. over staffs calculation, Murphy questioned whether 300 s.f. could be removed somewhere. Gaffron pointed out that the 3 car garage could be revised to a 2 car garage, but noted the residents do need some off street parking, the deck was of modest size, and even sliding the entrance down would not suffice. Attorney Barrett stated that, while it appears that staff suggests that there is a hardship, the City Council must determine what level of hardcover it feels comfortable with based on this neighborhood, drainage, and what the Council has allowed in the past under similar circumstances. Murphy questioned whether the home would be a 1 or 2 story home. Attorney Keane, Vogstrom’s representative, urged the City Council to focus on the size of the footprint and current hardcover. He indicated that the client was unsure of whether he would be proposing a 1 or 2 story home until the footprint could be determined. McMillan pointed out that, as a City Council, they must assume the ma,\imum level without plans. Sansevere stated that without having any idea of what would be going up, he could not approve something. Gaffron stated that the applicant docs not wish to draw up multiple versions of the house until they have an idea of what will be allowed. He noted that the enclosed elevations do give a sense of what the applicants would like to see approved. While she could understand the applicant’s hesitation to go to the expense of drawing up plans, McMillan stated that she could not support 36®b on a new rebuild. She stated that she did feel a small hardship based on the 0-75’ was warranted. White asked where the dock would be placed, and if it w ere to be placed beyond the lagoon, he questioned whether the applicant had the right to use the public land to access it. PAGE 4 of 11