02-13-2023 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 13. LA22-000051 – PAUL TAUNTON, 3600 IVY PLACE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES City Planner Curtis said this application is regarding after-the-fact variances to permit newly-installed hard cover within the 75-foot setback from the lake. The city received a complaint in September regarding a parking area under construction at 3600 Ivy Place. Staff confirmed that a new approximately 1100 square foot paver parking area had been installed within the 75-foot setback without permits.. Two new unpermitted patio improvements were also constructed within the 75-foot setback totaling approximately 1,000 square feet. The property was platted in 2018, and the home was constructed in 2020. The original development plans contemplated a shared connected backup area between the two properties. The property at 3570 Ivy Place installed their portion of this shared driveway connection. When the home was constructed at 3600 Ivy Place the builder chose not to install their portion of the shared driveway connection. No hardcover is permitted within the 75-foot setback from the lake with only few exceptions. The new parking area is 31 feet from the ordinary high-water level, and the two new patio areas are setback 43 feet and 50 feet from the lake. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing and voted four to zero to deny the after-the-fact variances for the improvements. Following the planning commission meeting, the applicant provided an exhibit demonstrating turning radius as well as a stormwater management report in an effort to support their unpermitted improvements. Those were included in your packet. We received one neighbor comment and it is in your packet. Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances. Additionally, because this application originated as a property violation, staff further recommends the applicant be provided a timeline for removal should the Council vote to deny the variances. We're asking council to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial. Walsh asked since staff recommends a timeline for removal what timeline would you have as your recommendation? Curtis said she would suggest that that they be removed at a time when the vegetation can be reestablished so that the lake doesn't experience any sediment from the removal. They could be removed now; it just would be open and bare at that point until the spring. Council Member Seals said it's been since 2018 but between the two properties was there not a turnaround at one point that was in the development plans? Curtis said in the landscape plan submitted with the development it does show a connection kind of a turnaround circle drive between the properties. The neighbor to the south did construct that backup area to be connected. 3600 Ivy planted arbor vitae along the property line and chose to put a backup apron kind of in this location. Seals asked if all of the everything was removed that was out of scope, not approved, if they were to connect that would they still have enough ability to do it with the hardcover ratio. Curtis said the hardcover total on the property is not over what is permitted. It's just the location in an area that we don't allow hardcover, so I believe they'd be able to accomplish that.