Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, March 17, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 10 of 26  <br />  <br />replacing it in kind, but that the photograph does show a paver patio area. Curtis stated it is not clear <br />from the photograph whether there is anything more than a paver patio. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated it appears the enclosure was there. <br /> <br />Curtis displayed the 2007 survey. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if the location of the proposed deck is actually a covered space on the survey. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the survey is showing it as part of the house footprint. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if the definition of in-kind is merely the footprint or whether it is the whole vertical <br />structure. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it is not. If the structure is taller than what existed, it would not be an in-kind rebuild. <br />Curtis stated since the patio does not extend up as high as the previous structure, it would not be an in- <br />kind rebuild. Curtis noted only a portion of the patio extends outside of what existed. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated it appears the neighbor is concerned not necessarily about the footprint but about the <br />role that the patio will have. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if they could construct a patio in that footprint. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated they could rebuild a room with a roof onto the house in that area. Staff’s concern is that <br />it is an elevated patio and is a bigger footprint than what existed. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated they are putting their elevated paver patio where the room on the house used to be, and <br />that if it is within that footprint, it would not be an issue. <br /> <br />Curtis stated that is correct if it constructed in the area where the porch used to be. <br /> <br />Berg stated the issue would be the stairs that extend beyond that footprint. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated she has a concern about going beyond anything that was there. Leskinen indicated she <br />does not have a problem with the rain gardens and the sidewalk in the front, but that she does have issues <br />with going beyond what is already there in the back of the house. Leskinen stated in light of the fact that <br />the owner basically ignored the City’s letter that permits would be required, she would be less inclined to <br />go beyond an in-kind replacement. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked what the calendar issue is that was raised in Staff’s report. <br /> <br />Curtis stated state statute allows for someone to apply for an in-kind replacement within one year, which <br />has been done. The intent of the state statute is to prevent someone from tearing something off and five <br />years later asking to rebuild it. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated in his view there were different presentations and different thoughts about the project <br />and that he is not sure what the hardcover numbers exactly are. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 04/21/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 03/17/2014 <br />[Page 10 of 26]