Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 17,2014 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis stated it is. <br /> Landgraver stated he is attempting to see if there are some things that can be done without redesigning <br /> everything. Landgraver stated he understands the need to keep a firm number, especially since it is <br /> already over,unless there is a compelling reason. <br /> Gaffron stated the patio at the lake is approximately 75 square feet and that the stone patio is probably <br /> double or triple that. Gaffron stated it appears the stone patio is approximately 15' x 13'. <br /> Mack asked if Staff could explain the difference between pervious and impervious and whether there <br /> would be some potential credit given for the stone patio. <br /> Curtis stated if the applicants were to remove the stone patio, Staff would allow for a 100 square foot <br /> credit. <br /> Schoenzeit stated as long as it is under six feet in height. <br /> Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is more struggling with the structural coverage than hardcover. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would agree the upper addition is in character and that it would be difficult to <br /> construct it less than the wall from a construction technique standpoint. <br /> Leskinen stated she does not want to get into redesigning the deck,but that an area of compromise could <br /> be reducing the size of the deck. Leskinen stated she is still struggling with the structural coverage. <br /> Curtis noted the applicants have offered to remove the wood landing and stairs on the south side of the <br /> house,which is approximately 61 square feet,and that they could also reduce the size of the deck to help <br /> reduce the overage. <br /> Leskinen indicated she would be open to that. Leskinen stated she understands the applicants' position <br /> and that there are some good points for having a deck on the lakeside of the house,but that she does not <br /> want to create something that opens the door for increasing structural coverage on other lots. <br /> Thiesse stated there is no sense in giving them a deck that is not useable and that the wood stairs and <br /> landing is pretty much the only thing that can be removed. <br /> Leskinen stated it should be a functioning deck but that the proposed 15' x 16' deck is substantial. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the deck is approved as shown, whether the next property owner would be allowed to <br /> put a second story over it. <br /> Curtis stated there is no lake setback or average lakeshore setback issue with the deck and that they could <br /> certainly screen it in. Curtis stated the Planning Commission would have the ability to place some <br /> limitations on it as well to lessen the impact of the structure. <br /> Marquardt pointed out the hex-shaped area is currently a screened-in porch which serves as a sunroom. <br /> Marquardt stated it is unlikely any subsequent property owner would screen this deck in since it is <br /> adjacent to the sunroom. Marquardt stated the house was there with the existing footprint prior to the <br /> ordinances being enacted and that the house has always been over in structural coverage. <br /> Page 11 of 23 <br />