10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 15.2003 6:00 o'clock p.ni. i*m »t3-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, CoatkiMd) WaaUya stated that the applicants have submitted plans to reconstruct a deck that is currently rotted; however, the configuration of the proposed deck is slightly different than the deck that currently exists. Currently, the staircase for the deck extends tow aids the lake off the end of the deck creating safety problems when exiting the house onto the deck. *rhe applicants are proposing to construct decking in the comer to fill in where the stairs currently exist so there is more space on the deck when exiting the home, and relocating the stairs to the front of the deck facing south so as not to encroach into the 75* setback. This resulu in a 33 square foot increase in hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone to allow 15 square feel of the deck to encroach into the 0-75’ zone. 2. Approval of the hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone allowing 38.6*/« hardcover when 38.2% currently exisU and 25% is normally allowed. This includes approval to allow the deck to increase in size in the north west comer by 33 square feet w kich consists of enclosing the comer where the stairway currently exists and moving the stairw ay to the front. 3. Denial of the lake setback variance to allow the south w est comer of the deck to continue to encroach 3’ into the 75 ’ setback. Oiair Smith asked why the applicants should be given the additional 33* of decking. Waataja indicated that if the applicants redesigned their current deck to remove it from the 0-75’ setback, staff felt the additional 33 s.f. was warranted. Hawn agreed that the stairs current location w as dangerous and that they should be moved. Waataja noted that additional issue of the nonconforming shed. Mr. Har\ cy asked why and when the shed became nonconforming and why it should be removed as part of this application. Ms. Har\ ey indicated her astonishment by all the problems that face them in an attempt to merely rebuild the rotting deck. She indicated that they w ere w tiling to move the steps in an effort to make the situation more safe; however, might be forced to leave them in their existing unsafe position to merely get what they had all along. She was hesitant to cut off or step in the deck as suff suggested, since it currently sits over cement and landscaping, and would look absurd. With regard to the shed, she stated that the shed is not noticeable w here it currently si^ and if they w ere forced to move it, the shed would be an eyesore relocated next to their patio, as well as their neighbor’s patio/deck. She noted that the deck sits up off the ground, allowing for drainage, and could not be moved to the other side of the house due to the steep slope. PAGE 12 of 25