Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE � <br /> ' ORONO PLANNING COD'iMISSION <br /> � Mondly,Septeinber 18,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3231 William Dampier, Continuecl) <br /> Dampier indicated he could remove his doghouse. ' <br /> Gaffron stated the lot area is 13,030 square feet and one percent would be 130 square feet. Gaffron stated <br /> the addition would consist of approximately 1.5 percent additional shuctural coverage so ihe end result <br /> would be about 16.3 perceiit. Gaffron stated at the tYme of the original approval,ihe deck was changed <br /> for two reasons: One,to uzeet a side setback and,two,because of the slope of the grade,the north side of <br /> the deck would have required a railing and would have been over six feet of grade and would have been <br /> considered structural lot coverage. In order for that portion of the deck not to be considered structural <br /> coverage,some terracing was t11en required. Gaffron stated at the time of the original variance approval, <br /> the applicant was being limited to 15 percent structural coverage. . <br /> Danipier stated he understands the pui�ose of struchiral limitations,which are designed to help linut <br /> shoreline massing. Dampier indicated the height of the building is already estaUlished and would not be <br /> increased with this proposal. Only from the air could you tell the house extended closer to the lake. <br /> , Dampier stated he would like to trade 480 square feet of hardcover(the approved deck) for 180 square <br /> feet of structural coverage. Dainpier indicated the benefits to him are sunlight,a better view of the lake, <br /> and another bedroom. The benefits to the City are that the hardcover would be reduced so pollution of the <br /> lake would be reduced and an aesthetically pleasing house would be constructed. He wanted to make <br /> something he and future generations would be proud of. . <br /> Bremer stated she assumed tlle inajority of the Planning Conunissioii would not be in favor of the <br /> increase in sh-uctural coverage but that she personally would Ue supportive of the proposal given the <br /> previously approved hardcover numUer—realizing that hardcover and struchiral coverage are completely <br /> different,the uniquely designed house, and the fact that the revised proposal is the least intrusive option <br /> , possible. � � <br /> Kroeger stated he is sympathetic to the applicant's case given the locatioii of the two adjoining neighUors' <br /> houses and the fact that the view from the lake�vould not change. <br /> Keinpf stated he would be inclined to leave the sh uctural coverage at 15 percent given it was the <br /> applicant's past addition to the house that brought it to the size it is and the past efforts to limit this house <br /> to 15 percent siructural coverage. The applicant chose to consiruct the addition to the sh•eet side of the <br /> house. . � <br /> Dainpier stated the reason for the addition to the rear of the house is that {then Planner} Wendy <br /> � Boltenberg inforined him that he could not go forward of the existing deck. He had wanted to put an <br /> addition on the lakeside so he could move his�eat room there from the street side of the house. Dampier <br /> stated he was granted a variance because eveiy spring he dealt with a subsiantial ainount of water ninoff <br /> from the pro�erly to the sottth that ruined his steps and flooded his garage and Uasement aiid the addition <br /> allowed him to redirect the runoff so it drained away fi•oin the garage and Uasenient. Dampier indicated if <br /> lie had to redo his house,he would have constructed it differently and that lie is attenipting to comply with <br /> tlie directions he has been�iven ovet•the years. <br /> Ralui�ointed out a Uedroom requires minimum diniensions of seven feet by teii feet. <br /> PAGE 17 . <br />