Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, July 21, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#11 #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, Continued) <br /> In July 2000, the applicants received a 7'side yard variance to allow house additions 3' from the <br /> side lot line where a 10' setback is required, in order to construct a 225 square foot second story <br /> addition over the back portion of the residence and enclose a 4' x 18' deck into living space. <br /> Foth expanded on the staff recommendation as follows: <br /> a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of 5' from side yard as it will limit light and <br /> air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. <br /> However, staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the 10' side yard setback and <br /> resulting in a further 30 s.f. (5' x 6') decrease in proposed structural coverage. <br /> b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be <br /> required by removing the 59.5 s.f. segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to <br /> be 6' x 15' (90 s.f. installed as opposed to 120 s.f.). <br /> c) The applicant's proposal does not include removal of 356 s.f. of plastic/fabric lined <br /> landscape beds in the 75'-250' zone. If these are removed(staff recommends removal), <br /> final 75'-250' hardcover will be (3503.16-356)=3147.16 s.f. or 54.7%. <br /> Chair Smith questioned the revised hardcover calculations based on fabric or plastic lined <br /> landscape bed removals, as they are not considered hardcover removals for the purpose of <br /> trading hardcover. <br /> Mrs. Hansen stated that they were striving to reduce hardcover and the massiveness of the newly <br /> constructed wall which was granted approval for a 6'X6' deck. She indicated that they were <br /> going to great lengths to move the lakeside stairs to within the deck itself and removing space <br /> from that deck altogether, along with 2' from the driveway for plantings. She stated that they <br /> would remove plastic from the keystone wall beds. She questioned how moving the covered <br /> entry deck wall over in front of the window would impact the addition. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the wall could be moved closer to the door to avoid the window altogether. <br /> Hansen stated that was how the original 6'X6' deck was before. <br /> Gaffron stated that by placing the wall to the north side of the window you would have a 5' <br /> setback, if it were placed the other direction there would be a 10' setback and the well and <br /> pressure tank would be obstructed. <br /> Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant was trying to obtain more usable space or <br /> improving aesthetics. <br /> Hansen stated that she was trying to make the porch more appealing and give the plan more <br /> character. <br /> PAGE 16 of 37 <br />