Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 17,2014 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the upper addition since it should not have any additional impact <br /> because it is over the existing footprint. Leskinen stated she is struggling with the deck given the increase <br /> in structural and hardcover coverage and that there is not a practical difficulty with the house itself. <br /> Thiesse stated the intent of the code is to prevent someone from building something way out of line that <br /> does not fit the character of the neighborhood. Thiesse stated the house, even with a deck, fits in there <br /> and needs to be there, and that he agrees the essential character of a lakeshore house would have a deck. <br /> Schoenzeit asked how the Planning Commission can justify an increase in structural coverage for this <br /> property and not on other properties. <br /> Thiesse stated there is room for the deck, and if it looks like it fits in the neighborhood,why is 15 percent <br /> a solid number. Thiesse questioned why 75 feet is a solid number and structural coverage is a hard <br /> number but hardcover is not. In this case the neighbors are not opposed to it,which makes a difference, <br /> and that the essential character of this neighborhood is a deck on the back of the house given the fact that <br /> they are located on the lake. <br /> Schoenzeit noted they are proposing 3,300 square feet and 2,500 square feet is allowed. Schoenzeit stated <br /> everybody could have that much if they have the room. <br /> Thiesse stated he is not a proponent of using the neighbor's property to someone's benefit. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the deck is likely not on there because they did not meet the limit the first time around <br /> but that they are now asking for it ten years later. <br /> Thiesse stated that is a very fair question but that the reason for the deck is access and visual. Thiesse <br /> stated they could reduce the size of the deck and eliminate the stone patio. Thiesse noted the brick patio <br /> down by the lake is not structural hardcover, and that if they are allowed anything for a deck,they would <br /> be in violation. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the house is already over on structural coverage. <br /> Leskinen stated the applicants' practical difficulty in this case is being able to access the rear yard. <br /> Curtis stated the structural coverage currently is 15.42 percent. <br /> Leskinen stated if the deck is simply for access,conceivably it could be reduced. <br /> Schoenzeit stated they could also construct a 4 x 4 landing with a staircase,which would allow access to <br /> the rear yard. Schoenzeit stated other people will want the same thing if the Planning Commission <br /> approves this request. <br /> Landgraver stated the upper addition is fine and that the Planning Commission could be opening up the <br /> door by making an exception in this case. Landgraver asked which patio consists of the 75 square feet. <br /> Curtis indicated she is not sure which patio that is. <br /> Landgraver asked if the stone patio adjacent to the house is incorporated into the hardcover calculations. <br /> Page 10 of 23 <br />