03/17/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2877 SHANE RUDD, Continued) Chaput explained that the proposed 219 s.f addition is for the expansion of garage space on the main level and living space (master bedroom, bath, and closet area) on the second level. A new steeper pitched roof would be constructed from the main entry(located at the south side) eastward. The existing roofline would remain as-is west of the entry door. Chaput maintained that a majority of the interior of the second floor would be remodeled with the addition. Finally, Chaput explained that the decorative wall on the south side is merely an opening which leads to the main entry of the house and is, essentially, a false facade. With regard to hardcover, Chaput pointed out that the applicant intends to remove an existing deck at the shoreline and shed which would reduce the hardcover in the 0-75' setback to 10.03%. In the 75-250' hardcover zone, Chaput stated that the changes to the house and deck and steps on the south side result in a net decrease of 20 s.f. or 67.2% from 67.58%. In reference to overall structural coverage, the proposed structural coverage is reduced from 25%to 24.3%. Chaput indicated that if the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be able to construct an addition on the street side of the home and reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side of the existing home, then the requested variances should be granted with the four conditions identified in the staff memo dated February 26, 2003. Chaput added that as of March 14, the proposed overhangs have been changed to 1.75' from 2.5' which further decreases the structural cover from 24.3%to 23.7%. Mr. Novak indicated that the applicants would attempt to come up with an alternative to the decorative wall by creating something that directs people to the entrance. Although they felt the attached decorative wall was more aesthetically pleasing than a free standing structure, the applicants would consider other options. Scott Burger, 594 Park Lane, neighbor across the street, indicated that he bought his home with lakeshore views several years ago. He was concerned that the decorative wall would totally obscure his lakeshore views altogether. As he is situated, the only views he had of the lake were those between the two properties across the street, which would be entirely eliminated if the decorative wall were allowed to be constructed. Although she felt the property to be high in overall structural coverage, Hawn recognized the applicant's reductions in structural coverage as proposed. She asked the applicants to design a more airy gate versus a solid structure which deters her neighbor's views. Novak asked what the official ordinances or rules with regard to decorative walls were. PAGE 18 of 24