03-20-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19. 2000 (#2543 T«d and Judith Edin, Continued) Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to replace an existing deck and adding a small bump>out section, 8 feet by 12 feet, to serve as a sitting area, and remove 829 ^uare feet of hardcover in the 75-250' setback area. The Applicant is proposing to replace an existing second story deck on the lakeside of the house due to its deteriorating condition. Weinberger stated the hardcover in the 0-75* setback will remain at 9.9 percent, with the hardcover In the 75-250' setback being reduced from 77.11 percent to 88.9 percent. The Applicant had indicated he would be agreeable to removing some of the existing rock and plastic underlayment located on the property. Weinberger noted the overall structure coverage will increase from 23.3 percent to 23.9 percent with the added bump-out section. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted a letter addressing hardship. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to rebuild the deck to the same dimensions as what currently exists. City Staff is not recommending approval of the bump-out section to the deck due to the increase in the amount of structural coverage on the property. Edin stated due to a shared driveway, his property has higher than normal hardcover. Edin noted at the last Planning Commission meeting he was told to reduce the hardcover, which he has done in the 75-250' setback. Weinberger remarked that this is the same basic proposal that was presented to the Planning Commission at its November meeting. Weinberger stated the application was tabled to give the Applicant time to review his application and to make the necessary changes. Nygard noted the minutes from the November meeting reflect that the Applicant was asked to reduce hardcover. Edin indicated he is unable to reduce hardcover any further. Hawn stated she has concerns regarding the amount of hardcover and structural coverage on the property. Hawn indicated the Planning Commission tends to adhere to the 15 percent structural coverage requirement. The Applicant was advised that he would probably be allowed to replace the existing deck due to its poor condition but would probably not be allowed to add to the size of the deck due to the increase in structural coverage on the property, which presently exceeds the amount allowed on the property. Hawn stated the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the deck in order to reduce the amount of structural coverage. Edin stated the amount of structural coverage on the property was not discussed at the last meeting. Smith stated the Planning Commission will allow the Applicant to replace the existing deck to the same dimensions. Weinberger pointed out the Planner's Report, which was provided to the Applicant, does refer to a variance for structural coverage. Weinberger stated Staffs recommendations remain the same. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired whether the structural cover&ge could be reduced on this property. Edin reiterated he was not aware the structural coverage needed to be reduced. .1 Page 19