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 5 of 12 those two additional patio areas but by the time we were at Planning Commission, we had included them in his after-the-fact hardcover setback variance for review. Johnson said at the Planning Commission meeting the representative of the of the applicant said that the patios were kind of new information to them at that time. Curtis said the city requires a hard cover permit to install patios and driveways. They would not have been approved at a staff level where they're located. But we did not know they were there when the driveway violation happened. Mr. Taunton said I was not aware that you needed to pull a permit for pervious, you know, that water sinks through it. So I was not aware that I needed to pull a permit. If I needed to pull a permit, I would have pulled one. They're not big patios. Again, I thought if it was pervious that you did not need to pull a permit. Johnson said with respect to my opinion on it, it wouldn't matter if he knew about a permit or not. This is not allowable hardcover. This is a design flaw. It's just not up to the city council to fix a design flaw. And I'm not sure if what Victoria brought up, that little extra extension between, I guess they don't have to actually have a drive-through --it could stop short but that. But again, it’s not our job to get into the design side of it either. From my opinion, this is not allowable hard cover and it needs to be removed. I would be supportive of waiting until the spring or until it can all be dealt with at one time, including the replacement hard cover. Walsh said he didn't think it's really a design flaw as much as we just know that developers want to maximize the amount of space they can build in. And sometimes they build too much house, and they don't leave enough driveway, or enough room for a really big fire pit. But the problem is, that's what they did is they maximized the house and didn't leave room for a lot of stuff. And there's lots of houses like that, that people buy and they find out after the fact they can’t add a deck and they can't do anything, because they made the house so big. That's what I think what you've got here is a brand-new house that just maximized everything you could do and left you at the bare minimum amount of driveway and not a lot of room except in that little itty bitty kind of point to build a put a fire pit. But I agree with Matt, that's a creation of the development itself. You can't create your own practical difficulty. Seals said she appreciates the applicant apologizing. I was just asking staff about codes and ordinances so I can see where that can happen. I don't think there's an assumption that you had malicious intent. I think we've been pretty consistent about the 75-foot setback. I remember this whole development very distinctively. There were conversations around whether there should even be a lot because there were conversations as to whether they filled in the wetland and all those things. I feel like there's been, I don't want to say a lot of giving, but we did talk through a lot of discussion around turning around with the fire truck, and all those conversations did happen. I did talk to the planning commission and understood where they're coming from. I do support that we need to remove those three and protect the 75-foot setback.