Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, November 24, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 13 of 21 <br /> <br />(8. #14-3697 GARY AND JOAN MARQUARDT, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD – VARIANCES, <br />continued) <br /> <br />Marquardt indicated they have a special needs grandchild who has a lot of physical challenges and that <br />they would like to be able to gate him and the younger kids on the deck. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated the new deck would be in the area of the stone patio, which will be removed. Marquardt <br />stated what they are talking about is less than 300 square feet. Marquardt stated according to the survey, <br />their lot has shrunk by 500 square feet and the garage ended up moving a foot closer to the road. <br />Marquardt stated they attempted to juggle those differences when designing their project. Marquardt <br />stated whether they put a deck on their house or not will not impact the quality of the water but that it will <br />make a great deal of difference in their lives. Marquardt indicated they have invested in this community <br />and that all of their neighbors are in agreement. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated the view from the shoreline shows that they are the only house in the entire <br />neighborhood that does not have a deck. Marquardt stated they are requesting a deck which will be <br />tucked back into that corner and would not create a problem. Marquardt stated in his view the Planning <br />Commission gave a pretty strong recommendation and that the deck will enhance their neighborhood and <br />is justified. <br /> <br />McMillan noted she was in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting and that the Planning <br />Commission did struggle with the request. McMillan stated she would agree the deck would not change <br />the stormwater. McMillan stated it is a fairness piece, however, and that structural lot coverage is an <br />important regulation that Orono has. McMillan stated the question is if the City Council allows this deck, <br />how can they stop someone else from also going over their structural lot coverage. <br /> <br />McMillan noted there will be a pretty extensive deck on the second story and that it comes down to the <br />fairness piece as it relates to other Orono residents. McMillan noted previous Planning Commissions and <br />City Councils have been very consistent in enforcing the structural coverage limit and that it is <br />uncommon to allow a net increase when the structural coverage is already exceeding 15 percent. <br /> <br />McMillan noted the language in the resolution adopted in 2001 reads as follows: “The Council has in <br />many situations allowed a property to replace the total existing structure when remodeling, but it is <br />uncommon to allow a net increase when already exceeding 15 percent.” McMillan stated it is very hard <br />to justify going over structural lot coverage a second time when it has been spelled out in a previous <br />resolution. McMillan noted it would also be for a second deck. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated the roof on the house had to be flattened out in order to allow a view from the new <br />bedroom and that it is not feasible to take their grandchildren out on that deck since it is not a social <br />gathering place. <br /> <br />Levang stated she does not see a practical difficulty for the additional deck. Levang stated given the fact <br />that the hardcover will be over the 25 percent limit and the structural coverage currently is at 19.2 percent, <br />she has difficulty increasing that. Levang stated she can understand why the applicant would like to have <br />a deck, but without being able to prove a practical difficulty, she would have a hard time approving that. <br /> <br />Marquardt asked her to define a practical difficulty.