Laserfiche WebLink
. MINUTES OF THE <br /> . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 19,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3206 KEN ANDERSON, CONTINUED) . <br /> stated a hardship has to be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted and that the only hardship <br /> he sees is that the house was constructed and then the codes changed. <br /> Jurgens indicated he likes the narrowing of the driveway and removal of some of the other hardcover. <br /> Jurgens reiterated he would like to see the size of the deck reduced. <br /> Mrs.Anderson stated they are making a reduction in the amount of hardcover with what they have <br /> proposed. <br /> Bremer stated this is an opportunity for the City to bring this property closer to compliance with the <br /> City's hardcover standards. Bremer stated in her view this project is very close to being a rebuild rather <br /> than a remodel,but because it is a remodel,they will probably get more hardcover and structural lot <br /> coverage than would be allowed on a rebuild. <br /> Bremer pointed out that considerable square footage is being added in the 0-75' zone by adding the <br /> second story. Bremer recommended the applicants consider their options for expanding the inside <br /> storage and that she would support reduction in the size of the deck. <br /> Bremer inquired whether it is a design problem to do the garage as Staff is recommending or whether it <br /> should remain as is. <br /> Alexander stated from her perspective being squared off would be better. <br /> Kempf stated the Planning Commission has the ability to require property owners to bring their lots <br /> more into compliance and that it is not a slam dunk to add a second story. <br /> Rahn stated the design gives the structure the appearance of a story and a half rather than a two-story, <br /> which makes the second story less of an issue. <br /> Alexander inquired whether more of the concrete pad could be removed on the walkout level as well as <br /> narrowing of the driveway,with half of the existing deck being removed. <br /> Turner stated the issue is more than hardcover and that the deck is located high enough off the ground <br /> that it might be considered structural coverage. Turner indicated another issue is the location of the <br /> � deck so close to the lake. <br /> Rahn commented decks are not always permanent and that they can be removed. <br /> Bremer inquired whether there was a permit for the deck. <br /> Anderson stated the deck was there at the time they purchased the property. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the applicants would like to revise their plans. <br /> PAGE 10 <br />