09-12-2011 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11 -3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Curtis stated if you add the entire existing deck and patio to the house footprint, there is 3,225 square feet of structural coverage. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing why the Planning Commission was unanimous in approving the application. Schoenzeit indicated one of the key points was that this sight point exists now and is not changing. The thought of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the visual arc that sweeps the property, which is not changing. The building is happening away from the lake and will preserve the existing viewing arc on the neighboring property. The applicant does not need the screening and they are moving things further away from the lake, which is why the Planning Commission approved it. Curtis noted the structural coverage will increase from 11.3 to 14.6 percent. C ._. Lizz Levang stated the Planning Commission also looked favorably at the removal of all the hardcover under the deck as well as in other spots. Jones stated the hardcover under the existing patio is counted the same hardcover as the deck but they are adding a screen porch, making a two -car garage into a three -car garage, and adding a deck in return for removing a small strip of the deck. Rahn stated they are going to relocate the deck. Rahn asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Printup stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting and then later toured the property. This has become less of a hardcover issue and is turning into a sight line and privacy issue. The structure is going to be. expanded and go up with the dormers, and even if there is a line of trees that currently provides screening, in his view the Planning Commission lost focus of what the neighbor was concerned about, which was preservation of the sight line. Planting additional pine trees is not going to stop the noise or the activity that will go on in that area. Schoenzeit stated in his view sight line is the wrong word and that it is what the view is of the neighbor. The property owner has relocated some items near the lake to in front of the garage. The neighbor cannot now see through the house and he won't after the project is completed. The sightline of the lake remains the same even if you can see more house. Jones pointed out there is 14 feet more house. Schoenzeit stated the applicant is allowed to build there. McMillan stated the proposed deck is being put in front of the average lakeshore setback. The property is nonconforming now and the applicant is proposing to relocate some items. The Council is dealing with a nonconformity piece with the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated in her view you cannot move it around without bringing the property into conformity. • Rahn asked if the neighbor on the other side has issues with it. Page 21 of 28