06-13-2005 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 13, 2005 7:00 o'clock p.m. • ( #05 -3111 Water Street Homes, Continued) Gafron stated every portion that has foundation and floor has been included but that the second story is not counted as additional footprint. Murphy inquired why the underground garage portion is included in the footprint. Gaffron stated it is considered structure from a building code perspective. Gaffron stated the two main _. ...... reasons for the oversize accessory structure ordinance deals with.the appearance of the structure and.the .._............. future use of the structure. White stated he is willing to agree to a smaller footprint because a portion of the building is located underground. Murphy inquired what the City was attempting to accomplish with the oversized accessory structure ordinance. Gaffron stated the ordinance addresses the size of the building and the total number of square feet that could be constructed on a lot, with the future use of the structure also being a concern. Murphy inquired whether the lower level could be considered a second building. McMillan noted they are requesting more than what is allowed for this size lot. • Carlson stated the variance is necessary if the outlot is not considered in the calculation for land area. Gaffron stated the ordinance does not address whether an outlot and/or wetlands should be included in the calculation of land area. Gaffron stated if the Council concludes that the primary reason for the ordinance is the visual impact and that the wetlands are a mitigating factor, the Council could find justification for granting a variance. Carlson inquired whether the outlot could be combined. Gaffron stated normally the City does not give credit for outlots. Gaffron stated this portion of the property was platted as an outlot in order to achieve a 200 -foot lot width along Fox Street. Barrett stated as a condition of the variance, it would be necessary for the property owner to agree that the two lots would be held in common and exclusive ownership. Carlson stated that would not be a problem. Barrett inquired whether another driveway access would be granted onto Fox. Carlson indicated no, noting that the outlot can only serve this property. Gaffron concurred that there is no other property that could be served by the outlot. Gaffron stated the • question then becomes whether wetlands should be included in the calculation for land area. PAGE 8