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 11 of 23  <br />  <br />Curtis stated it is. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he is attempting to see if there are some things that can be done without redesigning <br />everything. Landgraver stated he understands the need to keep a firm number, especially since it is <br />already over, unless there is a compelling reason. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the patio at the lake is approximately 75 square feet and that the stone patio is probably <br />double or triple that. Gaffron stated it appears the stone patio is approximately 15’ x 13’. <br /> <br />Mack asked if Staff could explain the difference between pervious and impervious and whether there <br />would be some potential credit given for the stone patio. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the applicants were to remove the stone patio, Staff would allow for a 100 square foot <br />credit. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated as long as it is under six feet in height. <br />Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is more struggling with the structural coverage than hardcover. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit stated he would agree the upper addition is in character and that it would be difficult to <br />construct it less than the wall from a construction technique standpoint. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she does not want to get into redesigning the deck, but that an area of compromise could <br />be reducing the size of the deck. Leskinen stated she is still struggling with the structural coverage. <br /> <br />Curtis noted the applicants have offered to remove the wood landing and stairs on the south side of the <br />house, which is approximately 61 square feet, and that they could also reduce the size of the deck to help <br />reduce the overage. <br /> <br />Leskinen indicated she would be open to that. Leskinen stated she understands the applicants’ position <br />and that there are some good points for having a deck on the lakeside of the house, but that she does not <br />want to create something that opens the door for increasing structural coverage on other lots. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated there is no sense in giving them a deck that is not useable and that the wood stairs and <br />landing is pretty much the only thing that can be removed. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated it should be a functioning deck but that the proposed 15’ x 16’ deck is substantial. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit asked if the deck is approved as shown, whether the next property owner would be allowed to <br />put a second story over it. <br /> <br />Curtis stated there is no lake setback or average lakeshore setback issue with the deck and that they could <br />certainly screen it in. Curtis stated the Planning Commission would have the ability to place some <br />limitations on it as well to lessen the impact of the structure. <br /> <br />Marquardt pointed out the hex-shaped area is currently a screened-in porch which serves as a sunroom. <br />Marquardt stated it is unlikely any subsequent property owner would screen this deck in since it is <br />adjacent to the sunroom. Marquardt stated the house was there with the existing footprint prior to the <br />ordinances being enacted and that the house has always been over in structural coverage. <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/20/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes <br />[Page 11 of 23]