Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, May 17, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Ressler said Staff feedback point of contention seems to be the deck. He asked if there are any other <br />concerns over the rest of the application and variance besides the deck. <br /> <br />Curtis replied all the applicant is asking for at this point is to construct that deck. <br /> <br />Ressler said as long as it stays behind the green line, Staff would be agreeable to it and asked if that is <br />accurate. <br /> <br />Curtis believes Staff could support the request if it was not encroaching in the 75 foot setback. <br /> <br />Kirchner asked if it is not encroaching in the 75-foot setback, would a variance still be required for the <br />50-foot setback? <br /> <br />Curtis replied yes. <br /> <br />Kirchner feels there is currently usage of the space and does not think the applicant is being denied usage <br />in that they do currently have a deck. He appreciates the research that went in but does not believe that <br />just because the average size of a deck is 300-400 square feet the Planning Commission needs to go out of <br />their bounds to allow that to happen within the 75 foot setback. If they were not encroaching on the 75 <br />foot setback he would likely be a bit more open to it if it was merely a 50 foot rear yard setback. <br /> <br />Ressler agrees. The precedent in Orono follows the recommendation by Staff in trying to be agreeable to <br />a reasonable building envelope and stay within the guidelines they have. He would support Staff’s <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Bollis agrees. There is no doubt there is practical difficulty on the lot with the legal building envelope. He <br />likes the intent of the exchange for the hardcover within the 75 foot setback but would like to see <br />something closer to a 1-to-1 exchange. <br /> <br />Mr. Bergstrom reiterated that he would be removing approximately 85 feet in that setback area. If the goal <br />is to stabilize erosion, which is the point of the hardcover issues for drainage; this meets and actually <br />exceeds that goal in a precious area by eliminating more hardcover area and reduces that. As for the <br />definition of reasonable, he would like to understand that if all decks bigger than this are now considered <br />unreasonable, he would think that will affect many other houses potentially being built in the City – if the <br />Commission defines anything bigger than this as an unreasonable request. <br /> <br />Kirchner shared that Mr. Bergstrom’s request is not unreasonable, the overall thought is there is a <br />reasonable use of the property at this time. A home is there for year-round use and the owner is being <br />afforded the opportunity to use the lot in a single family residential manner as zoned. As for removing <br />hardcover within it, a vast majority of applications the Commission sees involves hardcover from decades <br />prior that is already within that, which would set a bad precedent if they said because they are removing <br />some hardcover that they will allow other intrusions into that space to then be allowed. <br /> <br />Mr. Bergstrom pointed out in the survey, he did not know when building a house for his family, that they <br />were not able to do this and he understands there is a legal gray area of an existing house in that structure. <br />They intentionally worked with the City to pull that back and he does not see a great way besides putting