09-11-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 28, 2006 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ (#06-3206 Ken and LoriJean Anderson, Continued) Murphy requested clarification of the language stating that if the deck were reduced to 12 feet, a beam and support posts would have to be placed under the remaining deck; if it were reduced to 15 feet, no additional beam or post would be required; and if it were reduced to 24 feet, a beam and support posts would have to be placed under the remaining deck. Turner stated due to the way the deck has been constructed, if it were reduced to 12 feet or 24 feet, the deck would need a beam and posts to support it. Turner explained the boards of the deck are perpendicular to the house. Murphy inquired whether in addition to the roughly seven feet of overhang there is an additional overhang that does not show up on the print. Anderson indicated there is a four-foot overhang that is not depicted in addition to the seven feet. White commented it would be nice to eliminate the flat roof. Turner distributed a picture of the deck and house. Turner stated the deck is 24 feet from the wall of the house to the section of the deck where the applicants are proposing to eliminate a portion of the deck. Danbury stated if the deck were reduced to 12 feet, there would be one small portion of the deck that would remain in the sun and that the applicants would like to retain a bigger portion of the deck that would be in the sun. Danbury stated they have removed the hot tub. Turner stated the 12-foot deck that Staff is recommending is the minimum size deck, which does include the steps. Anderson indicated they currently utilize the area under the deck for storage. Anderson stated the deck does not affect the view of any neighbors and that there is a vacant lot on one side of their residence. If they are required to reduce the deck down to 12 feet, it would reduce the value of the home since the deck is central to the design of the house. Danbury stated the size of the lot dictates the need for the variances. Rahn commented it did not appear that there were any permits for the deck ever issued and that the deck seems rather large for this lot, especially given the close proximity to the 0-75 foot zone. White stated in his view the applicants should be allowed to retain a portion of the deck that is located in the sun, noting that the applicants are agreeable to reducing a portion of the deck as well as remove some other hardcover. White stated he would not want the deck to encroach into the neighbors’ view lines and that he would be in favor of a 24-foot deck. McMillan inquired whether the vacant lot is a fire lane. ______________________________________________________________________________ PAGE 6 Item #02 - CC Agenda 09/11/06 Approval Of Minutes 08/28/06[Page 6 of 19]