03-22-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13,2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 10. #17-3904 LAUREL ULLAND ARCHITECTURE/MARTHA MYERS HEAD, 2090 SHORELINE DRIVE, CUP VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6732 — Continued - The proposal involves reconstructing and elevating the cabin above the floodplain using helical piers rather than fill material, which triggers the need for the first conditional use permit. The existing cabin was constructed prior to the City's guest house conditional use permit requirements, which triggers the second conditional use permit. The CUP is required because the guest house/cabin will be reconstructed in a different expanded footprint and is in a nonconforming location. The simple act of raising the cabin out of the floodplain is considered an expansion that would trigger the average setback variance requirement as well. At their February meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the conditional use permits and variance. Staff recommends approval of the application. The City Council should make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution that is before them tonight. Seals stated she understands the idea of replacing the cabin in the same location and raising it, but that she is challenged with increasing the footprint even further into the 75 -foot setback. Curtis noted the applicants withdrew that request during the Planning Commission meeting. Walsh asked if the applicants would like to expand the footprint. Curtis indicated the applicants would like to expand the footprint to make the cabin slightly larger than the current cabin. Curtis noted the cabin is not in the exact same location because a portion of the cabin is not being rebuilt. The applicants are attempting to move the cabin further away from the garden on the property, out of the floodplain, and out of the 75 -foot setback. The intent is to make the cabin similar to what exists but make it more functional for their family. Printup asked if the cabin could be moved without triggering an expansion. Printup stated the City will usually allow something to be replaced as is. Curtis indicated the applicants can replace it as is without coming before the City Council. Curtis stated if the applicants were to just take the structure as it is and just lift it would be considered an expansion because it increases the volume of the space that is not a cabin above it. Curtis stated the Council can limit the approval to what currently exists. Curtis noted structural coverage on the property is not applicable and the hardcover is not being increased. In addition, the 75 -foot encroachment has been eliminated. Curtis stated the setback is determined by the property across the bay which has no impact from this project and that the applicants would like to make the cabin more functional. Seals asked if this is the only structure the applicants are looking to deal with. Seals stated raising the elevation of the cabin does make sense since flooding was an issue. Crosby asked how high they are going up. Page 9 of 32