06-19-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 (tf?.S64 William Dampier, Continued) wfnre they recommended denial of this application based on excessive lot coverage. Staff has hac a number of discussions regarding this application in which the Applicant has suggested some altenative methods for revising the nature of the deck to enable it to be defined as non-structural for lot coverage purposes. The Applicant is proposing to add a retaining wall around the north and east sides of the deck at a height and width that would technically allow removal of the deck railing, which currently is about nine feet above grade at its highest point. The majority of the deck is less than six feet above grade, and would be entirely less than six feet above grade once the retaining wall/terrace was built. If the deck Is not included in the lot coverage calculation, lot coverage by the house and proposed addition becomes conforming at 14.9 percent. A railing may be removed If the deck is less than 30 inches at the perimeter. The Applicant is proposing to raise the grade to make the deck less than six feet above grade and therefore it would no longer be considered as structural coverage. Gaffron stated construction of a retaining wall would require a variance since a section of the deck is approximately three to four feet from the property line. Gaffron otated the Planning Commission should also consider whether the existing deck with railing constitutes visual bulk and massing of structure to the extent that it should be included in lot coverage. If the Planning Commission does not feel it should be included in the total lot coverage, one option is to recommend approval of the retaining wall/railing removal concept, which would eliminate the need for a lot coverage variance. Another option would be to recommend approval of the variances for the side setback, hardcover and lot coverage for the proposal with the deck left in its present condition with the finding that there is Justification/hardship for a lot coverage variance. Dampier stated he understands the Planning Commission has the authority to recommend removal of his deck, noting when the deck was replaced he was led to believe that he was in compliance, which has since been found to be erroneous. Dampier stated with removal of the deck, he would be left with an area where the ground cover is very sparce due to the amount of shading as well as the established root systems from a number of trees in the area. Dampier stated his neighbor has addressed this same problem by placing down plastic underlayment with rock. Dampier commented he has attempted to grow grass in this area as well as experimenting with various plants and ground cover that tolerate shade well, which has not met with much success. Removal of the deck would also result in the premature death of two to three trees in the area. Dampier stated by constructing the retaining walls and planter system, he would be able to address »he drainage problems that he is currently experiencing. Dampier stated his proposal to raise the ground level addresses the issue of lot coverage and is a possible solution to his problem. Dampier indicated he is attempting to find a solution to this situation and address the concerns of the Planning Commission. Lindquist inquired whether the proposal by Dampier was to leave the deck as is, remove the railing, and construct a regaining wall system with planters. Dampier stated it is. Hav/n noted the Applicant is proposing to build up the ground elevation which would make the deck less than six feet off ground level. Danpier stated the railing is above six feet, with only the northwest corner of the deck consisting of approximately one square foot being over six feet in elevation. Page 11 • 1