My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-23-2023 City Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2020-2024
>
2023
>
01-23-2023 City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2023 8:32:42 AM
Creation date
3/1/2023 8:32:40 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> JANUARY 23,2023 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT <br /> 13. LA22-000051—PAUL TAUNTON,3600 IVY PLACE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES <br /> City Planner Curtis said this application is regarding after-the-fact variances to permit newly-installed <br /> hard cover within the 75-foot setback from the lake. The city received a complaint in September <br /> regarding a parking area under construction at 3600 Ivy Place. Staff confirmed that a new approximately <br /> 1100 square foot paver parking area had been installed within the 75-foot setback without permits.. Two <br /> new unpermitted patio improvements were also constructed within the 75-foot setback totaling <br /> approximately 1,000 square feet. The property was platted in 2018, and the home was constructed in <br /> 2020. The original development plans contemplated a shared connected backup area between the two <br /> properties. The property at 3570 Ivy Place installed their portion of this shared driveway connection. <br /> When the home was constructed at 3600 Ivy Place the builder chose not to install their portion of the <br /> shared driveway connection.No hardcover is permitted within the 75-foot setback from the lake with only <br /> few exceptions. The new parking area is 31 feet from the ordinary high-water level, and the two new patio <br /> areas are setback 43 feet and 50 feet from the lake.At the November Planning Commission meeting,the <br /> Commission held a public hearing and voted four to zero to deny the after-the-fact variances for the <br /> improvements. Following the planning commission meeting,the applicant provided an exhibit <br /> demonstrating turning radius as well as a stormwater management report in an effort to support their <br /> unpermitted improvements.Those were included in your packet. We received one neighbor comment and <br /> it is in your packet. Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances. Additionally,because this <br /> application originated as a property violation, staff further recommends the applicant be provided a <br /> timeline for removal should the Council vote to deny the variances. We're asking council to direct staff to <br /> draft a resolution for denial. <br /> Walsh asked since staff recommends a timeline for removal what timeline would you have as your <br /> recommendation? <br /> Curtis said she would suggest that that they be removed at a time when the vegetation can be <br /> reestablished so that the lake doesn't experience anyy sediment from the removal. They could be removed <br /> now; it just would be open and bare at that point until the spring. <br /> Council Member Seals said it's been since 2018 but between the two properties was there not a <br /> turnaround at one point that was in the development plans? <br /> Curtis said in the landscape plan submitted with the development it does show a connection kind of a <br /> turnaround circle drive between the properties. The neighbor to the south did construct that backup area to <br /> be connected. 3600 Ivy planted arbor vitae along the property line and chose to put a backup apron kind <br /> of in this location. <br /> Seals asked if all of the everything was removed that was out of scope, not approved, if they were to <br /> connect that would they still have enough ability to do it with the hardcover ratio. <br /> Curtis said the hardcover total on the property is not over what is permitted.It's just the location in an area <br /> that we don't allow hardcover, so I believe they'd be able to accomplish that. <br /> Page 3 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.