Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday. July 21.2003 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />m 1 ^03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN. Conliavcd) <br />Shannon Burger, architect and neighbor at S94 Park Lane, stated that the porch succeeds in <br />breaking up the expanse of wall and provides a needed covered entry from the detached garage. <br />Paul Duenow. 577 Park Lane, stated that, aesthetically, he agreed this would improve the look <br />for the neighborhood. As the adjacent neighbor, he did not feel the addition to be an imposition <br />and believed it to bo a functionally better design. He maintained that the lakeside removals were <br />a reasonable accommodation to the request. <br />Kris Rudd, 601 Park Lane, concurred, stating that she. too. supponed the request and did not <br />view’ air circulation as a problem. <br />As inside access was available. Mabustli questioned whether outside access to the pressure tank <br />was neccssar>'. <br />Rahn stated that the applicants already far exceeded their hardcover and structural coverage <br />limits. <br />Bremer slated that she would prefer to see the removals made from the lakeside of the home to <br />allow for this addition and agreed that, aesthetically, the design was better. She felt, given the <br />small lot, improvements by decreasing the structural coverage were desirable. <br />Chair Smith questioned w hether trading off the side yard encroachment w as acceptable. <br />Hansen stated that the home itself protrudes further into the side >’ard than the proposed deck. <br />Duenow felt that, in reality, the zoning was the issue. <br />Although she recognized the intense use on the street side. Hawn stated that she would prefer it <br />there, and to lose the intensity on the lakeside. <br />Fritzicr concurred w ith Hawn. <br />GafTron stated that the old survey failed to properly reflect existing decks and the concrete slab <br />below. He noted that the applicant could remove the deck and slab of concrete below which <br />would equate to more structural cover than being proposed for the strcctsidc. <br />Hansen added that the shilling of the lakeside stairs and removal of the deck would also allow <br />for a better opening accessing the lakeside yard. <br />Rahn indicated that he would support the staff recommendation, since he believed the need for <br />the covered porch should have planned for in the original submittal p.'ocess. <br />PAGE 17 of 37