08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETD^G Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (N9 M3-2895 GARY GERI^IUNDSEN. CoatiBacd) a result of modiricalions to the plan upon construction of the home. Waataja stated that the modifications include the l.S'X12' two story bump-out on the east side of the home. The applicant is proposing a 12*XI2* second story deck and stairway (180 s.f.) off the lakeside of the bom greater than 6' off grade; therefore, it would be included in the lot coverage by structures figure. The propos ed lot coverage by structures would be ! 708 s.f. Due to a lack of viable hardship, and the stipulation set forth in Resolution #4645 which set limits for the property, staff would recommend denial of both variance requests. Germundsen stated that sightlincs for his neighbors are not a concern and referred to letters from neighbors submitted to Planner Boltenberg. He indicated that both neighbors on either side of his home have decks that extend further than his home. He stated that, originally, he undcfcstimated how bad parking on Highwood Road was, and that drainage would be as significant an issue as it lua proven to be. Germundsen stated that, currently, all of the ^ ater ruiming down Hi^w*ood runs between him arxl his neighbor's property; therefore, warranting the need for the retaining walls. He maintained that the driveway does exceed what was approved, but believed miscalculations must exist. He slated that he had no other outside structures on the property to remove in order to gain room to allow- for the deck. Chair Smith stated that no letters accompanied the packets. Germundsen pointed out that letters from neighbors on both sides of his home were submitted with the original packet. He indicated that he would supply staff with new- copies of those letters, as provided to the previous planner. Berg questioned the bump-out on the lakeside, as it did not exist on origirud plans. Geimundsen staled that he purchased the house w ith the plans and that a w indow was present on the plans. Waataja indicated that the bump-out was not approved; whereas, a window was granted approval. Rahn questioned whether driveway removals could be made to allow for the d«k. Germundsen stated that he could reach 40% with driveway removals. While staff could live with the fact that the retaining walls w-ere necessary to control drainage and that the second story bump-out appeared during construction, Gaffron stated that staff could not support the addition of a 12’X12' deck above the other approvals. Frilzler stated that the lot. in his opinion, had been maxed out. PAGE 13 of 37