Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF Tl� <br /> ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,September 18,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#06-3231 William Dampier,Continued) <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 structural coverage so the end result <br /> would be about 16.3 percent. Gaffron stated at the time of the original approval,the deck was changed <br /> for two reasons: One,to meet 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 then required. Gaffron stated at the time of the original variance approval, <br /> the applicant was being limited to 15 percent structural coverage. <br /> Dampier stated he understands the purpose of structural limitations,which are designed to help limit <br /> shoreline massing. Dampier indicated the height of the building is already established 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. Dampier 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 the maj ority of the Planning Commission would not be in favor of the <br /> increase in structural coverage but that she personally would be supportive of the proposal given the <br /> previously approved hardcover number—realizing that hardcover and structural 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 location of the two adjoining neighbors' <br /> houses and the fact that the view from the lake would not change. <br /> Kempf stated he would be inclined to leave the structural 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 structural coverage. The applicant chose to construct the addition to the street side of the <br /> house. <br /> Dampier stated the reason for the addition to the rear of the house is that {then Planner} Wendy <br /> Bottenberg informed 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 great room there from the street side of the house. Dampier <br /> stated he was granted a variance because every spring he dealt with a substantial amount of water runoff <br /> from the property to the south that ruined his steps and flooded his garage and basement and the addition <br /> allowed him to redirect the runoff so it drained away from the garage and basement. Dampier indicated if <br /> he had to redo his house,he would have constructed it differently and that he is attempting to comply with <br /> the directions he has been given over the years. <br /> Rahn pointed out a bedroom requires minimum dimensions of seven feet by ten feet. <br /> PAGE 17 <br />