Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, APRIL 8,2002 <br />Gaffron stated the driveway reduction would reduce hardcover by about 1.5%. <br />Flint stated he favored supporting the plication because they were making <br />improvements from the current house. <br />Barrett stated they could not use two sets of rules and warned that if the application were <br />approved, it would likely have a precedential element. Flint suggested making it clear in <br />the resolution that they are reducing hardcover and moving the house back from the <br />lakeshore, making it less oppressive. Barrett stated that the current plan is better and more <br />cohesive than the current structure on the lot, and the applicants have truly struggled to <br />find a suitable plan. <br />Nygard stated the only way for the Twmwells to reduce hardcover was to reduce the size <br />of the house, reduce the driveway, or move the house back on the lot. Gaffron stated that <br />would affect the neighbors by the domino effect. <br />Liz Hawn stated that the Planning Commission routinely considers a tear down the same <br />as new construction and use first principles when considering appV. ations. To look at <br />what is merely better than before leaves them open to approving undesirable construction. <br />The Planning Commission found hardships in the fact that they prefer cars to exit the <br />driveway facing the street, and the lakeshore setback ai d age and size of the trees were <br />also factors. <br />Mike Sherridan stated that in the variance packet, it listed trees as something that could <br />constitute a variance. He stated they tried to design a responsibly sized structure, placed <br />the footprint around the existing trees, and used the existing drive. <br />Tom Palm of 1685 Concordia Street stated that he supported the current plan because it <br />held up the aesthetics of the neighboriiood and would not negatively impact the neighbors.