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 /> Shannon Burger, architect and neighbor at 594 Park Lane, stated that the porch succeeds in <br /> breaking up the expanse of wall and provides a needed covered entry from the detached garage. <br /> Paul Duenow, 577 Park Lane, stated that, aesthetically, he agreed this would improve the look <br /> for the neighborhood. As the adjacent neighbor, he did not feel the addition to be an imposition <br /> and believed it to be a functionally better design. He maintained that the lakeside removals were <br /> a reasonable accommodation to the request. <br /> Kris Rudd, 601 Park Lane, concurred, stating that she, too, supported the request and did not <br /> view air circulation as a problem. <br /> As inside access was available, Mabusth questioned whether outside access to the pressure tank <br /> was necessary. <br /> Rahn stated that the applicants already far exceeded their hardcover and structural coverage <br /> limits. <br /> Bremer stated that she would prefer to see the removals made from the lakeside of the home to <br /> allow for this addition and agreed that, aesthetically, the design was better. She felt, given the <br /> small lot, improvements by decreasing the structural coverage were desirable. <br /> Chair Smith questioned whether trading off the side yard encroachment was acceptable. <br /> Hansen stated that the home itself protrudes further into the side yard than the proposed deck. <br /> Duenow felt that, in reality, the zoning was the issue. <br /> Although she recognized the intense use on the street side, Hawn stated that she would prefer it <br /> there, and to lose the intensity on the lakeside. <br /> Fritzler concurred with Hawn. <br /> Gaffron stated that the old survey failed to properly reflect existing decks and the concrete slab <br /> below. He noted that the applicant could remove the deck and slab of concrete below which <br /> would equate to more structural cover than being proposed for the streetside. <br /> Hansen added that the shifting of the lakeside stairs and removal of the deck would also allow <br /> for a better opening accessing the lakeside yard. <br /> Rahn indicated that he would support the staff recommendation, since he believed the need for <br /> the covered porch should have been planned for in the original submittal process. <br /> PAGE 17 of 37 <br />