Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ' <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 13, 2006 • <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (4. #OS-3I36 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) . <br /> application was made. Relatively minor grading is required to accommodate this proposed driveway <br /> =.~..: ~--��_T location. Construction of his driveway;ras it was part of the application for the-rebuild on the site,-does-•-----�•��-----����-���-�--- <br /> not trigger the need for creation of a wetland buffer,which would make its construction more difficult. <br /> The applicant has indicated that he eventually intends to replace the existing detached garage at the rear <br /> of the property with a new larger detached garage, accessing the new driveway and including a second <br /> level storage or workspace. <br /> McMillan inquired what impact that would have on the wetland buffer. <br /> Gaffron stated since this application was submitted prior to the wetland ordinance being adopted by the <br /> City,the buffer is not triggered and he meets the 26-foot setback. Gaffron stated at the time the detached <br /> garage is formally applied for,it may trigger the establishment of a wetland buffer if that proposal <br /> exceeds 50 cubic yards of earth movement. � <br /> Gaffron noted that although the design and layout are somewhat unconventional,the zoning code <br /> generally does not address the interior design or aesthetics of a single-family residence. There is a _ � <br /> lcitchen or kitchenette on each of the home's three levels and that the studio above the garage has a high <br /> potential from a design standpoint to become a guest apartment as the studio is separated from the rest of <br /> the house by a single doorway,has a full bath and closet in addition to a kitchenette, and has a separate <br /> entrance to the garage. This property would potentially qualify for a guest apartment CUP if one was <br /> applied for. <br /> Issues for consideration include the following: <br /> 1. Is the proposed house location acceptable or should it be moved further rearward? <br /> 2. Is the proposed landscape plan acceptable? <br /> 3. Does Council have any other concerns regarding this application? • <br /> Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance and approval of the average setback variance, <br /> subject to confirmation of a house location that is acceptable to the Council. Further, Staff finds that the <br /> thresholds established in the Zoning Code for requiring a land alteration CUP are not surpassed with this <br /> proposal and no such CUP is required. However, if the house is relocated, a revised grading plan should <br /> be required to confirm that the 500 cubic yard grading threshold is not surpassed and that building height <br /> does not become an issue. � . <br /> Broitzman stated he has spent a considerable amount of time on his plans in an attempt to conform with <br /> the parameters set out by the City Council. <br /> Murphy inquired on what basis the variance would be granted in this application. <br /> Gaffron stated it is based on a hardship and circumstances unique to this lot. Gaffron stated it is � <br /> considered a variance because the applicant is asking for something that is outside the standards of the <br /> code. Gaffron stated there are other criteria that could be used to determine whether a variance is <br /> necessary outside of a hardship. <br /> Murphy inquired why a lot width variance is necessary in this case at 1.9 acres. � <br /> PAGE 10 of 27 <br />