Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, CONTINUED) <br /> and deck, and the rest retaining wall. Tritz stated he has already removed a plastic pond and that he <br /> would be willing to remove a 3' by 3' cement slab. <br /> Winkey commented he does not see the hardship for the variances and that this application is not <br /> consistent with what the Planning Commission has approved in the past concerning massing. <br /> Leslie stated in his opinion massing is less tangible than structural coverage or hardcover. Leslie stated <br /> there is not an impact from the lake regarding the massing and that the second story will almost be equal <br /> with the roadway,which mitigates the feeling of massing and is unique to this property. <br /> Jurgens stated in his opinion the addition should not encroach into the setback. Jurgens stated the <br /> resolution granted in 1998 gave the applicant a structure that was livable, habitable, and served the <br /> purpose it was intended for. Jurgens stated the purpose of a variance is to give someone reasonable use of <br /> their property, which was given to the applicant back in 1998. <br /> Jurgens stated as far as the hardcover on the lot,he would like the hardcover verified with what was <br /> approved in 1998. <br /> Tritz indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the addition so it would not encroach into the <br /> setback. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the 2,406 square feet of structural coverage that was approved was ever built. <br /> Gaffron noted the previous application dealt with a deck. Gaffron stated the addition is going over <br /> existing structural coverage and would add to the massing on the lot. <br /> Bremer stated she would recommend that the addition be held to the 30 feet. <br /> Tritz illustrated on the overhead where he would propose to end the addition. Tritz stated the addition <br /> would end near the dormer window. <br /> Bremer stated that reduction in the size of the addition would eliminate the need for a setback variance <br /> and that the issue then becomes massing on the lot. Bremer inquired what amount of hardcover would <br /> have to be removed to comply with the resolution. <br /> Tritz stated he would need to remove 352 square feet. Tritz stated he is also agreeable to removing the <br /> 3' by 3' concrete pad and a portion of the driveway. <br /> Leslie commented the massing issue should be taken into account from the lake as well as from the <br /> neighbors. Leslie stated he would like to see a plan for the second story addition now that it is being <br /> reduced. <br /> Tritz illustrated on the overhead the layout of the revised second story addition. <br /> PAGE 35 <br />