Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 12, 2015 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 25 of 37 <br /> <br />13. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO <br />CIRCLE, VARIANCES (continued) <br /> <br />Gustafson noted a lot of neighborhoods have rules that say you cannot have more than one garage door <br />facing the street because it is not a very architecturally appealing design. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated given that, they started designing the house. The main issue that was encountered was <br />the location of the fireplace in relation to the house, which really does create a bit of an obstruction to the <br />view. The columns of the patio walls are four or five feet tall with footings. Gustafson noted the Code <br />does not define that as structure in determining the average lakeshore setback even though it clearly <br />blocks the view. <br /> <br />Gustafson indicated they did work with the neighbors quite a bit prior to the Planning Commission <br />meeting and that everyone was in favor of the proposal. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the <br />size of the house has been reduced by 18 inches. Gustafson stated originally they were going to slide the <br />house back and keep the original design but that created two variances instead of one. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated they have tried to compromise and come up with a solution that makes the neighbors <br />happy but that something changed over the past week. Gustafson stated it does not sound like they are <br />against the proposal but that they are not available. Gustafson stated nothing has changed in the proposal <br />outside of the house being 18 inches smaller. Gustafson noted the patio is just an option and that they <br />included it in helping to calculate the hardcover. Gustafson indicated the applicants have had very little <br />discussion about the shape or location of the patio. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she discussed with Ms. Callahan the location of the patio and that Staff felt it would be a <br />good idea to know where the general location of the patio will be. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated they have not developed that any further not knowing if the variance request would be <br />approved but that it would be an on-grade patio constructed out of flagstone or other similar material. <br />Gustafson stated pulling the house back by six feet from the existing home and that their request is to <br />preserve the views. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there is a reason to have the patio on that side rather than have it centered more on the <br />house. <br /> <br />Gustafson stated there really has been very little discussion about that and that the architect merely placed <br />it on there without talking to the owners. <br /> <br />McMillan stated if the patio stands as is, it would be a further encroachment in the average lakeshore <br />setback. <br /> <br />Belle Yaffe, Applicant, stated the patio is a place holder on the survey and that she envisions that most of <br />the activity would be on the other side of the porch. If there is anything in front of the porch, it would just <br />be a pathway. <br /> <br />Gustafson noted there are doors off the end of the porch. McMillan stated she is assuming one of the <br />reasons for the patio is for some privacy.