03-13-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) application was made. Relatively minor grading is required to accommodate this proposed driveway location. Construction of his driveway, as it was part of the application for the rebuild on the site, does not trigger the need for creation of a wetland buffer, which would make its construction more difficult. The applicant has indicated that he eventually intends to replace the existing detached garage at the rear of the property with a new larger detached garage, accessing the new driveway and including a second level storage or workspace. McMillan inquired what impact that would have on the wetland buffer. Gaffron stated since this application was submitted prior to the wetland ordinance being adopted by the ` City, the buffer is not triggered and he meets the 26 -foot setback. Gaffron stated at the time the detached garage is formally applied for, it may trigger the establishment of a wetland buffer if that proposal exceeds 50 cubic yards of earth movement. Gaffron noted that although the design and layout are somewhat unconventional, the zoning code generally does not address the interior design or aesthetics of a single - family residence. There is a kitchen or kitchenette on each of the home's three levels and that the studio above the garage has a high potential from a design standpoint to become a guest apartment as the studio is separated from the rest of the house by a single doorway, has a full bath and closet in addition to a kitchenette, and has a separate entrance to the garage. This property would potentially qualify for a guest apartment CUP if one was • . applied fora Issues for consideration include the following: 1. Is the proposed house location acceptable or should it be moved further rearward? 2. Is the proposed landscape plan acceptable? 3. Does Council have any other concerns regarding this application? Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance and approval of the average setback variance, subject to confirmation of a house location that is acceptable to the Council. Further, Staff finds that the thresholds established in the Zoning Code for requiring a land alteration CUP are not surpassed with this proposal and no such CUP is required. However, if the house is relocated, a revised grading plan should be required to confirm that the 500 cubic yard grading threshold is not surpassed and that building height does not become an issue. Broitzman stated he has spent a considerable amount of time on his plans in an attempt to conform with the parameters set out by the City Council. Murphy inquired on what basis the variance would be granted in this application. Gaffron stated it is based on a hardship and circumstances unique to this lot. Gaffron stated it is considered a variance because the applicant is asking for something that is outside the standards of the code. Gaffron stated there are other criteria that could be used to determine whether a variance is necessary outside of a hardship. Murphy inquired why a lot width variance is necessary in this case at 1.9 acres. PAGE 10 of 27