09-21-2020 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gregg Sutton,Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Staff finds the Practical Difficulties are not met and recommends denial. Chair Ressler said looking at the aerial view, is the deck already in place and they are talking about the porch being added, or is it an extension of the deck as well as the porch. Ms. Oakden replied the porch is being proposed and the deck is existing, as of 2016,the applicant is proposing to add three extra feet to it. There are also existing stairs wrapped around the deck,which she learned about today, so those stairs would also be pushed out. Chair Ressler asked how many feet is it encroaching upon the setback line, as proposed. Ms. Oakden said the setback is 45-feet, and the proposed porch and deck would be 42-feet(roughly a 3- foot encroachment), but with the wrap-around stairs, it would be at 38-feet(a 7-foot encroachment). Kirchner asked where the 3-foot extension of the deck is onscreen. Ms. Oakden noted it is shown as the dotted line(Deck B), pointing out the setback line and noted the deck currently meets the setback, however the proposed three extra feet on the deck, the proposed porch and stairs addition is what is being requested. Patrick Jacobson, 339 2nd Street, Excelsior, of Lake Country Builders reported the existing stair deck is in the setback as it sits today. He thanked Ms. Oakden for her review and stated reasons he believes they should recommend approval of the application. He said Lake Country Builders did their diligence in design and planning, along with the architect to both contact the City six months ago and designed plans around that information, which in the end was clearly not accurate. He said they looked online and couldn't find any designation for backlot on-line, he noted the homeowners are present today, and they can share their own feelings, and he is frustrated by the fact they've spent six months in design planning, the homeowners have spent over$10,000 in fees to find out they cannot do what they were told they could do. He noted the responses to the Practical Difficulties are littered with words like "reasonable use" and"adequate enjoyment." He said he's not a lawyer and will not debate those meanings, but when one looks up the word adequate,they see words such as"good enough, sufficient," and when looking at words like reasonable they see words such as"moderate and fair." He stated the homeowners have a great passion for their yard and the environment, as well as connecting with the environment. The reason they designed the porch as it is, is so they can dine outside in nature; to tell them they can reasonably use their home without this and adequately enjoy it,to him, is inaccurate. He noted they were also told to put it on the East or West side, but on the due-East side is a house and if they'd put the porch there,they'd be looking right into the neighbor's kitchen window. On the West side, it would be the further area from the kitchen and food-preparation area, and there are also some architectural feasibility problems with the roof pitches and roof design that would adversely affect the house,the architectural impact to the neighborhood and the value. Mr. Jacobson said they designed the addition to extend an existing gable which is the most practical position for the space as it is right next to the kitchen. He stated they were told over and over that the backlot setback is not overly burdensome and quite frankly he would argue it is; when looking at the survey, it is a very narrow lot front-to-back, and the backlot designation was unbeknownst to the current owners(they did not know it was a backlot,nor did they know of the different Page 3 of 27