11-13-2023 City Council Agenda Packet

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 6 hardcover improvements within the 75-foot setback (from the channel and the lake), and the home is nonconforming with respect to FEMA floodplain regulations. The applicant is proposing to reduce the total site hardcover by 1,677 square feet including the 528 square foot reduction within the 75-foot setback. The driveway was reoriented and reduced, the lakeside sport court has been removed, the paver patio has been removed, and the lakeside deck has been reduced by half. The home is set back approximately 8 feet from the channel-side property line and while the 10-foot LR-1B district setback can be met on the interior side, there is not sufficient room on either side of the home to fully comply with the 15-foot perimeter fill requirement. The Code requires a conditional use permit to formally address the departure from the fill bench requirement. Additionally, the floodplain filling and mitigation shown on the plan falls under the MCWD’s purview; a floodplain mitigation permit is currently being reviewed by the Conservation District. On October 16 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the application as applied. No comments from the public were received. Staff continues to recommend approval of the project with the exception of the 14-foot upward expansion of the porch along the channel. Staff does not support the vertical expansion and would recommend a changed roof line or converting the porch to a patio, she said. Walsh asked if the difference was the gabled roof on the porch. Curtis said that and the need to raise the new home on fill because of FEMA regulations and the design of the porch roof resulted in the change in elevation near the channel. The porch has a flat roof now. Erick Hill of K and K Builders said the reason for the change in the porch roof line was aesthetics. They did not think a flat roof would look appropriate on the new design of the house. Walsh asked about practical difficulty as aesthetics is not a practical difficulty. Johnson said he was familiar with this property, and it is striking how close that home is to the channel. With the property going up it will feel like that porch is hanging over the channel, he said. However, they are placing the house on its current footprint and the porch would be located where it is now. He noted the home is being raised three feet because of the fill required by FEMA. He suggested they could have three feet above the current roof. He said it looked like a good plan with reduced hardcover. He asked if the builder could suggest an alternative to the roof. Hill said the porch is a little higher because they made it level with the first floor instead of a step down. They did not like a flat roof. Johnson suggested they give a maximum roof height and let them figure out the design. Benson said she was in favor of following the staff recommendation as the desire to have a gabled roof because of the other gables on the house are a design choice, not a practical difficulty. The applicant said the vegetation along the channel would screen the proposed roof from view. Benson moved, Johnson seconded, to direct staff to draft a resolution to approve LA23-000051, 2795 Shadywood Road, Variances and CUP consistent with the staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.