Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday, September 21,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ms. Oakden said the existing deck as shown would roughly meet the 45-foot setback, because the current <br /> deck meets it, so if they built it in-line with the existing deck, it should meet that 45-foot setback and <br /> wouldn't trigger the need for variances. <br /> Libby said not to try to redesign the porch, but looking at the dimensional positioning of the porch, it <br /> almost appears to be an atrium or entry space, noting there is a bump-out which looks approximately three <br /> feet,then he noted it's actually five feet. He asked if it would destroy the architectural plan in order to <br /> come into conformance with the setbacks to be able to move three of the five feet of the porch back into <br /> that atrium/opening before going into the porch outside. <br /> Mr. Gregg Sutton,the homeowner noted the five foot area is currently dining room and they don't want to <br /> delete that space. <br /> Libby asked what they would put in there as far as dining. <br /> Mr. Sutton said they already have a dining room table in the space. <br /> Libby noted he wasn't criticizing, but looking at plans and clarifying. <br /> Mr. Sutton noted if anyone goes to the home,they will see that is the best place to put the three-season <br /> porch,there is no room on the East side as it's garage and entryway, on the West side is off the living <br /> room, so they'd be totally disconnected from the deck-area. Furthermore,the deck is centrally located on <br /> the rear of the building,thereby providing the furthest distance from property lines and most space around <br /> the yard. He said moving into the East would be overlooking the neighbor's kitchen and the West isn't <br /> viable from an architectural standpoint. He said being 2.9 feet over on the design, he would ask the <br /> Council to take some of these things into consideration, in addition to the fact that they basically wasted <br /> $10,000 and an entire summer based on wrong information from the City. <br /> Kirchner said not to redesign the plan, but asked if there was any thought to turning the current deck into <br /> the proposed porch,where they would then have approximately fifteen feet of deck. <br /> Mr. Sutton said they have discussed it and it is a potential option, but again,that pushed the deck further <br /> out to the East and that portion of the property is elevated significantly with respect to the neighboring <br /> property, looking down into the property. He said it's not a very viable option. <br /> Kirchner asked the way the deck is situated now, does the homeowner see into their kitchen area. <br /> Mr. Sutton noted they do, but the further they go out, the higher the elevation and the closer they are to <br /> their garage and kitchen. <br /> Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. <br /> Chair Ressler said there is a bit of confusion, perhaps because the survey was wrong,with the additional <br /> stairs that are already encroaching upon the rear-yard setback. He asked Ms. Oakden if those were added <br /> after the fact. <br /> Page 5 of 27 <br />