09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadiiy, Aigast 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. (M04-3044 Jcaairer SImb, coatimcd) the addition would not be as aesthetically pleasing, and noted that the airount of hardcover on this lot would be reduced w ith this project Simon stated in her opinion the slope is more than just gradual noting that they do sled down it in the wmtemme. Simon stated given the location of the house on the lot her opuons are very limited. Rahn stated it appears to him that the architect designed the addition not knowing the parameters of the design and the problem is an architectural thing. Rahn stated if the applicant determines that the addition cannot be relocated in a conforming location, he would not be able to understand that. Rahn commented in his opinion the architect designed the addition for a nonconforming portion of the lot and that there are other locations where the addition could be constructed. Simon stated they also considered turning the existing porch into a kitchen and inquired whether she would be allowed to remodel that and keep the same existing hardcox-er. Rahn stated if it is an existing ctoscd-in space, she probably could, but that he would have to defer to the building inspector. Gaffron staled one of the things the City w ould need lo do w ould be to look at the permit history of the property lo determine whether that porch was actually permitted at some time in the past, but that he would also defer lo the building inspector. Rahn suggested it might be a viable option to have the building ms(x*cior look at the porch to determine whether it could be converted into a kitchen. Gaffron inquired whether there is a foundation and basement under the porch. Simon stated it docs not have a basement under it. Jurgens commented it appears to be a slab on grade. Simon stated that porch is actually located closer to the neighbor's house. Jurgens commented in his opinion it would be a design issue to relocate the addition. Jurgens inquired whether the addition could \k located on the front and the deck on the back and clear the setback. Gundlach suted the deck is a second story deck and v ould ha\« the same setbacks as the house. Gaffron stated if the deck is high enough to require a railing, it w ould be considered structural and would need to meet the setback. Jurgens stated at this time he is unable to support approving this addition since it appears to be more of a design issue than a hardship. Simon reiterated that given the current location of the bouse, it is difficult to design somethmg that is aestheucally pinsmg. PAGE U