Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 16, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#04-3044 Jennifer Simon, continued) <br /> the addition would not be as aesthetically pleasing, and noted that the amount of hardcover on this lot <br /> would be reduced with this project. Simon stated in her opinion the slope is more than just gradual, <br /> noting that they do sled down it in the wintertime. Simon stated given the location of the house on the <br /> lot,her options are very limited. <br /> Rahn stated it appears to him that the architect designed the addition not knowing the parameters of <br /> the design and the problem is an architectural thing. Rahn stated if the applicant determines that the <br /> addition cannot be relocated in a conforming location,he would not be able to understand that. Rahn <br /> commented in his opinion the architect designed the addition for a nonconforming portion of the lot <br /> and that there are other locations where the addition could be constructed. <br /> Simon stated they also considered turning the existing porch into a kitchen and inquired whether she <br /> would be allowed to remodel that and keep the same existing hardcover. <br /> Rahn stated if it is an existing closed-in space, she probably could,but that he would have to defer to <br /> the building inspector. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the things the City would need to do would be to look at the permit history of the <br /> property to determine whether that porch was actually permitted at some time in the past,but that he <br /> would also defer to the building inspector. <br /> Rahn suggested it might be a viable option to have the building inspector look at the porch to <br /> determine whether it could be converted into a kitchen. <br /> Gaffron inquired whether there is a foundation and basement under the porch. <br /> Simon stated it does not have a basement under it. <br /> Jurgens commented it appears to be a slab on grade. <br /> Simon stated that porch is actually located closer to the neighbor's house. <br /> Jurgens commented in his opinion it would be a design issue to relocate the addition. Jurgens inquired <br /> whether the addition could be located on the front and the deck on the back and clear the setback. <br /> Gundlach stated the deck is a second story deck and would have the same setbacks as the house. <br /> Gaffron stated if the deck is high enough to require a railing,it would be considered structural and <br /> would need to meet the setback. <br /> Jurgens stated at this time he is unable to support approving this addition since it appears to be more of <br /> a design issue than a hardship. <br /> Simon reiterated that given the current location of the house,it is difficult to design something that is <br /> aesthetically pleasing. <br /> PAGE 16 <br />