Laserfiche WebLink
, MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMIS5ION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 17,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> replacing it in kind,but that the photograph does show a paver patio area. Curtis stated it is not clear <br /> from the photograph whether there is anything more than a paver patio. <br /> Leskinen stated it appears the enclosure was there. <br /> Curtis displayed the 2007 survey. <br /> Lemke asked if the location of the proposed deck is actually a covered space on the survey. <br /> Gaffron stated the survey is showing it as part of the house footprint. <br /> Landgraver asked if the definition of in-kind is merely the footprint or whether it is the whole vertical <br /> structure. <br /> Curtis indicated it is not. If the structure is taller than what existed, it would not be an in-kind rebuild. <br /> Curtis stated since the patio does not extend up as high as the previous structure, it would not be an in- <br /> kind rebuild. Curtis noted only a portion of the patio extends outside of what existed. <br /> Landgraver stated it appears the neighbor is concerned not necessarily about the footprint but about the <br /> role that the patio will have. <br /> Lemke asked if they could construct a patio in that footprint. <br /> Curtis indicated they could rebuild a room with a roof onto the house in that area. Staf�s concern is that <br /> it is an elevated patio and is a bigger footprint than what existed. <br /> Leskinen stated they are putting their elevated paver patio where the room on the house used to be, and <br /> that if it is within that footprint, it would not be an issue. <br /> Curtis stated that is correct if it constructed in the area where the porch used to be. <br /> Berg stated the issue would be the stairs that extend beyond that footprint. <br /> Leskinen stated she has a concern about going beyond anything that was there. Leskinen indicated she <br /> does not have a problem with the rain gardens and the sidewalk in the front,but that she does have issues <br /> with going beyond what is already there in the back of the house. Leskinen stated in light of the fact that <br /> the owner basically ignored the City's letter that permits would be required, she would be less inclined to <br /> go beyond an in-kind replacement. <br /> Landgraver asked what the calendar issue is that was raised in Staff's report. <br /> Curtis stated state statute allows for someone to apply for an in-kind replacement within one year,which <br /> has been done. The intent of the state statute is to prevent someone from tearing something off and five <br /> years later asking to rebuild it. <br /> Landgraver stated in his view there were different presentations and difFerent thoughts about the project <br /> and that he is not sure what the hardcover numbers exactly are. <br /> Page 10 of 26 <br />