Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 17, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 8 of 23  <br />  <br />neighborhood. Staff has not identified a practical difficulty inherent to the property which supports <br />granting hardcover or structural coverage variances. <br /> <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance allowing for the construction of the <br />second story improvements to the home conditioned upon screening from neighboring properties as the <br />Planning Commission deems appropriate and feasible. The additions must conform to the standard height <br />and massing requirements of the zoning code. Staff finds no practical difficulties exist which support the <br />hardcover or structural coverage variances. As a result, those requested variances should be denied. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission can account for the difference in the calculation between <br />the 2001 approval and the current survey. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the Planning Commission should focus on the square footages and that it is not uncommon <br />for surveys done years apart to have discrepancies in square footage based on where the lake was <br />measured. Curtis stated the square footages are matched up easily enough but exceed the approved level. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked approximately where the deck would be located. <br />Curtis stated the dotted line shows the location of the deck and that there is a portion of the patio that <br />currently sticks out. Curtis indicated the deck is angled somewhat. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked whether the deck would go completely over the existing stone patio. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the deck would be larger than the existing stone patio. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the stone patio will remain. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the stone patio can remain but that the applicants can clarify whether it will be removed. <br /> <br />Gary Marquardt, Applicant, stated they have resided in the house for 29 years, and when they remodeled <br />in 2001, they had two kids in college, and that they now have eight grandchildren, with six of them being <br />under the age of ten. Marquardt stated the functionality of the house has changed, and that when they <br />visit, which is frequently, they would like all of the kids and parents to be on the same floor when <br />sleeping, which is the reason for moving the bedroom. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated it is important to note that the structural changes, not including the deck, do not change <br />the external footprint of the house. There also is a need for additional storage in the house. Marquardt <br />indicated the house was constructed long ago and is located in the apex of Spring Cove. Marquardt stated <br />when he and the neighbor put their docks in, they have to be careful because they can touch at the end. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated as it relates to the deck, the essential character of this neighborhood is that every house <br />except this one has a deck. Marquardt stated in his view the deck will make the house more functional <br />during their retirement years. The setback for the corner of the house is 2.7 feet from the lot line. <br />Marquardt indicated when they constructed the garage, there was double sheet rock placed on the walls <br />for fire protection. <br /> <br />Marquardt stated as it relates to the deck, they have a grandchild who has some physical ailments, and <br />that when he heads for the lake, without a deck, they can only see him for a short distance but then have <br />to go out the house to continue to follow him. Marquardt stated that is the primary hardship for them but <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/20/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 8 of 23]