05-11-2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 27, 2009 7:00 o’clock p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ PAGE 3 (3. #08-3361 CITY OF ORONO, CODE AMENDMENT FOR HARDCOVER REGULATIONS, Continued) Bremer asked if the ordinance merely codifies what has been in practice for the past few years. Turner indicated it does. McMillan noted Section E states that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. McMillan asked whether the hardcover could be credited to a different zone. Turner stated if the property owner has 30 percent in the 75-250 but the work is being commenced in the next zone back, they would have to comply with the hardcover regulations for that particular zone. If the work is being done in the same zone where there is 30 percent hardcover existing, they have to bring the hardcover into compliance. Gaffron stated Staff did not administratively have the authority to approve hardcover exchanges when hardcover exceeds allowed levels and that the ordinance codifies what has been a policy for the past few years. Turner stated the ordinance would cover properties when they could do the work without a variance. Number two states that if they are at 80 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone, they can add a second story without a variance provided they meet all the setback requirements. McMillan stated page three, as it relates to driveway easements under 3B, reads that the portion of the driveway that serves only the secondary property is not considered hardcover for either the primary or secondary property. McMillan asked what the rationale is for that provision. Gaffron stated this issue comes into play when two properties would like to share a driveway but the driveway is located primarily on one property and deals with how the hardcover would be calculated. Gaffron cited several examples. McMillan stated the Council can review that provision at the next meeting rather than delay the meeting any further. Franchot commented it seems odd that the secondary property does not get any credit for the portion of the driveway on their property. Turner stated the portion of the driveway located on the first property serving the second property would not be counted on the second property. Curtis illustrated an example of a shared driveway on the overhead and explained how the hardcover would be allocated to each property. Gaffron pointed out the language would need to increase the lot area in the calculation by the area of the hardcover. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 05/11/09 Council Minutes 04/27/09 [Page 3 of 18]