Laserfiche WebLink
MIlVUTES OF THE c <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 15,2011 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is looki.ng to see whether this is an optimal design. <br /> Landb aver stated to his understanding the garage needs to be e�ended because of the screen porch. <br /> Sharratt stated a number of factors go into desia ing a house, such as client's needs,finances, CiTy codes, <br /> and coming up with an optimal plan. The primary reason that the gazage was pushed forward was not <br /> because of the screen porch. The applicant looked at other locations for the screen porch on the lake side, <br /> which would have created a roof and created more of an obstruction to view. Pushing it into the garage <br /> was an attempt to meet the requirements of the City. Sharratt indicated they have tried to do everything <br /> they could to get out of the nonconforming area. <br /> Sharratt stated as to whether the deck is legal nonconforming,to his understandi.ng it is depicted on the <br /> 1995 survey. Sharratt reiterated they looked at a number of different solutions and not just one in coming <br /> up with the current proposal. During that process we felt that we would have an advantage by pushing it <br /> back into the structure and making it less of an imposition on the lake side. It is 149 feet from the deck to <br /> . the lake,which is twice the 75-foot setback,but it is not adequate for the line of sight because the lot is <br /> located on a point. Sharratt indicated the real reason the garage was pushed out is because there was a <br /> desire for two and a half stalls,with the added space being used for storage. <br /> Sharratt noted they are below structural coverage requirements at 14.6 percent. <br /> Curtis indicated the deck is shown on the 1995 survey and there is no indication in the file that the deck is <br /> not legal. � <br /> Schoenzeit noted in 1995 the variances were added. <br /> Levang commented she is impressed by the efforts of the applicants to remove hazdcover. Levang asked <br /> if the applicant would be conducive to addi.ng more trees if they would help mitigate the Jones'view. <br /> Helmer indicated she would be willing to put in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out the increase in the hardcover is on the street side. Schoenzeit stated in his view it <br /> looks like a worthwlule project and that the negatives to the neighbors are quite minimal.for tlie benefits <br /> that they are getting. <br /> Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with Chair Schoenzeit. � <br /> Leskinen stated to her recollection there was quite a bit of screening already on the property <br /> Jones noted the screening does not exist in the winter. <br /> Helmer pointed out that in the winter no one would be out there. <br /> Thiesse noted the deck depicted in the picture is existing and that the new deck would be virtually the <br /> same. The rim board will be noticeable in the same location. <br /> � Page <br /> � � 28 <br />