10-13-1997 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 13, 1997 • ( #9 - #2295 Conley Brooks Jr. - Continued) Bob Mitchell suggested the Council was forgetting that the prior owner had a substandard house located across the street with a garage and Brooks has improved the property by eliminating that structure. He indicated these buildings had existed; the land was not vacant. Mitchell noted the proposed garage is located farther from the road. Goetten questioned whether anyone else would be allowed so much building with a remodel application. She noted the existing house had been small. Mitchell responded that the hardcover has decreased while the residence has increased. Goetten acknowledged that noting the applicant was asking for more structure. Mitchell maintained that the garage was existing. Goetten said the garage would be new construction. Brooks said the lock box would not aid in the storage of items unrelated to the lake, such as trailers and snowblower. Jabbour said the conversation taking place was inappropriate to the application at hand and should be concentrated on ordinances and hardship. He noted the property would be considered differently if the building had been eliminated. The request is for structure that would be allowed on larger properties. He noted a garage would not be denied for a residence. Mitchell responded that the issue was not the quantity of the lot but the unusual shape of the lot, its impact on the roadway, and having a swamp to the rear. Jabbour informed Mitchell that this was not a lot but the whole property is considered as the lot. Flint, in noting the previous situation on the property, sees the improvements as beneficial and said he would support the garage as proposed. Jabbour emphasized that the code requires a hardship to be shown. Mitchell indicated the Planning Commission did recommend approval. Robert Floyd said the Ferndale area was not developed like a typical suburban subdivision and should not be viewed as such. He feels the garage would be an asset to the neighborhood and not unusual in this neighborhood. He said while the garage may be out of character elsewhere, the code was not designed for such areas. Jabbour countered that the code takes into consideration that all residences must be in compliance. Kelley referred to the plat map and on -site viewing. He indicated by walking up the driveway of the property, he realized the accessory structure would not be located behind the residence. There is no other location to place the garage behind the principal structure. He saw the question as being whether the residence is entitled to an accessory structure; and if so, where should it be located. 13