08-18-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («11 M3-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN. CoiiliMMcd) In July 2000, the applicants received a 7'side >’ard variance to allow house additions 3' from the side lot line where a 10* setback is required, in order to construct a 22S square foot second story addition over the back portion of the residence and enclose a 4’ x 18’ deck into living space. Foth expanded on the staff recommendation as follows: a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of S’ from side yard as it w ill limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. However, staff w ould approve a proposed porch meeting the 10’ side >'ard setback and resulting in a further 30 s.f (5* x 6’) decrease in proposed structural coverage. b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be required by removing the 59.5 s.f segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to be 6’ X 15’ (90 s.f installed as opposed to 120 s.f). c) The applicant’s proposal docs not include removal of 356 s.f of plastic fabric lined lam’scape beds in the 75’-250* zone. If these arc removed (staff recommends removal), final 75’*250’ hardcover will be (3503.16-356)^3147.16 s.f or 54.7^i. Chair Smith questioned the revised hardcover calculations based on fabric or plastic lined landsc^ bed removals, as they arc not considered hardcover removals for the purpose of trading hardcover. Mrs. Hansen stated that they were striving to reduce hardcover and the massi\ cncss of the newly constructed wall which was granted approval for a 6’.X6’ deck. She indicated that they were going to great lengths to move the lakeside stairs to within the deck itself and removing space from that deck altogether, along with 2’ from the driveway for plantings. She stated that they would remove plastic from the keystone wall beds. She questioned how moving the covered entry deck w all over in front of the w indow would impact the addition. Chair Smith asked if the w’all could be move I closer to the door to avoid the w indow altogether. Hansen suted that was how the original 6’X6’ deck was before. GafTron stated that by placing the wall to the north side of the w indow ycwould have a 5 ’ setback, if it were placed the other direction there would be a 10’ setback and the well and pressure tank would be obstructed. Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant was trying to obtain more usable space or improving aesthetics. Hansen stated that she was trying to make the porch more appealing and give the plan more character. PAGE 16 of 37 Mutm i