Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 21, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 9 of 26  <br />  <br />construct conforming additions or appurtenances. The deck was constructed 34.4 feet from the west side <br />lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. <br /> <br />The applicant’s home is situated as close as 28.2 feet to the east side lot line where a 50-foot setback is <br />required. The 8’ x 8’ deck is located at the rear of the home and is set back 34.4 feet from the property <br />line to line up with an existing patio door. <br /> <br />Staff finds that the substandard size of the applicant’s property within the five acre zone is a practical <br />difficulty. The applicant’s home is located within the required side yard setback. The deck is set back <br />further than the edge of the home to be in line with an existing patio door. It does not appear that the deck <br />will have an adverse visual impact on either adjoining neighbor. <br /> <br />Planning Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact variance to allow the deck to remain. The <br />property owner shall be required to apply for and receive approval of a building permit for the deck. In <br />addition, the deck will need to be inspected by the building official. <br /> <br />Lemke asked how the building inspector will inspect the footings. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated she is not sure exactly how it will be done but that it is likely they will need to be <br />excavated. Curtis stated the building inspectors have done that in the past in other situations. <br /> <br />Landgraver asked if there is a shed on the property. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated a permit was issued for the shed after the deck was construction without a permit and <br />prior to this hearing. Curtis stated the deck was constructed in a conforming location. <br /> <br />Dale Richardson, Applicant, noted this is a replacement deck and not a new deck. The stairs and landing <br />were demolished prior to purchasing the property. The swallow footings for the deck were removed and <br />replaced with full-depth footings. Richardson stated he did take photographs of the footings prior to <br />covering them up, which is standard procedure. <br /> <br />Richard indicated he applied for a permit back in March of last year and received no response from the <br />City for over 60 days so he went ahead and finished the work. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. <br /> <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> <br />Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3632, Dale <br />Richardson, 4325 Chippewa Lane, granting of an after-the-fact variance in order to allow an 8’ x 8’ <br />deck within the 50-foot side setback, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> <br />Thiesse asked whether an existing patio door is a passive statement for allowing something to be <br />there. Thiesse noted there have been a number of buildings constructed with just a patio door. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 <br />[Page 9 of 26]