Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR MAY 26, 1998 <br />( #10) #2363 William H. Bockmann, 1130 Loma Linda Avenue - Variances - continued <br />There were no public comments. <br />Kelley stated the house was very ambitious for the lot. It would be much more massive than <br />what currently exists and requires many variances. <br />Bockmann noted that the total lot coverage was only at 11.5 %. <br />Kelley noted the 3 -car garage added mass to the structure. <br />Jabbour added that height was also an issue. As hardcover is limited, it forces structures to be <br />built higher. <br />Kelley stated there was nothing above the garage and it might be possible to use that area. <br />Bockmann commented that the house at 1098 Loma Linda has 65% hardcover. Jabbour <br />responded that the house was pulled back from its original location and was an improvement <br />• from what previously existed. <br />Jabbour concurred with Kelley that the proposed house was not reasonable for the lot. <br />Bockmann asked if eliminating one garage would get closer to what Council would_approve. <br />Jabbour responded that he was only proposing that and was trying to help get something that <br />would be approved without redesigning the residence. <br />Both Flint and Peterson agreed with Kelley and Jabbour that the house was too ambitious for the <br />lot. <br />Bockmann's son designed the house and indicated he has reduced the footprint as much as <br />possible and still be able to accommodate a bedroom for his grandfather. There will be four <br />drivers so eliminating a stall leaves two cars in the driveway. <br />Jabbour sympathized with the applicant in providing assistance for an elderly relative, but family <br />and financial situations are not considered hardships according to State statute. The uniqueness <br />of the land is a hardship. <br />Bockmann referred again to the property at 1098 Loma Linda, noting they had a similar proposal <br />that was proposed with an elderly relative. Jabbour responded that he gave no consideration to <br />that part of the application. <br />7 <br />