Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 27, 2009 <br />• 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(3. #08 -3361 CITY OF ORONO, CODE AMENDMENT FOR HARDCOVER <br />REGULATIONS, Continued) <br />Bremer asked if the ordinance merely codifies what has been in practice for the past few years <br />Turner indicated it does. <br />McMillan noted Section E states that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded <br />in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. McMillan asked whether the <br />hardcover could be credited to a different zone. <br />Turner stated if the property owner has 30 percent in the 75 -250 but the work is being <br />commenced in the next zone back, they would have to comply with the hardcover regulations for <br />that particular zone. If the work is being done in the same zone where there is 30 percent <br />hardcover existing, they have to bring the hardcover into compliance. <br />Gaffron stated Staff did not administratively have the authority to approve hardcover exchanges <br />when hardcover exceeds allowed levels and that the ordinance codifies what has been a policy for <br />the past few years. <br />Turner stated the ordinance would cover properties when they could do the work without a . <br />variance. Number two states that if they are at 80 percent hardcover in the 75 -250 foot zone, they <br />• can add a second story without a variance provided they meet all the setback requirements. <br />McMillan stated page three, as it relates to driveway easements under 3B, reads that the portion <br />of the driveway that serves only the secondary property is not considered hardcover for either the <br />primary or secondary property. McMillan asked what the rationale is for that provision: <br />Gaffron stated this issue comes into play when two properties would like to share a driveway but <br />the driveway is located primarily on one property and deals with how the hardcover would be <br />calculated. Gaffron cited several examples. <br />• <br />McMillan stated the Council can review that provision at the next meeting rather than delay the <br />meeting any further. <br />Franchot commented it seems odd that the secondary property does not get any credit for the <br />portion of the driveway on their property. <br />Turner stated the portion of the driveway located on the first property serving the second property <br />would not be counted on the second property. <br />Curtis illustrated an example of a shared driveway on the overhead and explained how the <br />hardcover would be allocated to each property. <br />Gaffron pointed out the language would need to increase the lot area in the calculation by the area <br />of the hardcover. <br />PAGE 3 <br />