09-27-2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 27, 2004 7:00 o'clock p.m. ( *7. #04 -3051 KEVINAND JULIE FITZPATRICK, 356 WESTLAKE STREET, Continued) • Cronin stated that the neighbors would prefer that no dormers be allowed on the garage or home at all for privacy sake. He asked if the Fitzpatricks would be willing to table their application and come back with a home plan that would meet all of their conditions. Sansevere stated that it would be unusual for the City to require an applicant to let a neighbor redesign their home altogether. Gaffron concurred, stating that it would be highly unusual for the City Council to accept a neighbor's proposed conditions and direct an applicant to do what another neighbor has requested, unless the Council is in total agreement with these conditions. Timothy Harrer, 340 Westlake Street, stated that he did not think one set of neighbors should be allowed to redesign the home of another neighbors. He indicated that he believed a person should be allowed to develop their property as they see fit if they are able to work within the codes. Harrer stated that the plans that the other neighbors have for their property, or had for this property, should have no bearing on this applicant's ability to develop their property now. He vehemently opposed the condition requiring easements be granted and reiterated the fact that 2 acre lots within this area do not exist. He maintained that the Fitzpatricks had complied with all that had been asked of them and should be given approval to build this nice home for their family. Sansevere questioned whether staff was truly comfortable with the applicant's requests or whether the precedence was `thin' as suggested by the opposing neighbors. • Gaffron stated that, generally, when the zoning does not match what exists, the City has often used the standards that more similarly match the zone that does exist, in consideration of requests. He noted that he could recall up to perhaps a dozen similar past applications in which this had been the case. While the consideration of an 8' versus 12' setback on one side or the other was a condition for consideration by the neighbors, McMillan commented that 10' seemed the most logical compromise. While the Planning Commission could support the application 5 -1, Murphy stated that he continued to struggle with the side setbacks. He recognized that the Ericksons had hoped to see these three parcels combined into one in order to move this area closer to meeting the 2 acre zoning district which it is assigned. He asked the applicant to consider accommodating the requests of the neighbors. Fitzpatrick stated that he was willing to accommodate several of the neighbors' requests. He pointed out that he had already made 10 -15 sets of revisions to the plans since first meeting with staff and had acknowledged to the neighbors last week that he would be willing to remove the buckthorn, underground the utilities, and limit windows on the southern face. On the other hand, Fitzpatrick stated that he would not appreciate the neighbors going so far as to redesigning his home. • PAGE 8of13