Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 <br />( #5 #2205 Elaine and Steve Silus - Continued) <br />Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one -story residence with basement in order to <br />keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure. They <br />also are attempting to save the hackberry tree. He noted the proposed deck does not <br />extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house <br />would be farther back on the property. Silus said the garage by the street will be removed <br />and the driveway will become more centered. He informed Stoddard that the deck will be <br />cantilevered and have a railing. <br />Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree <br />expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the <br />structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back <br />further on the lot. <br />Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of <br />substandard lots. The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning <br />requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus <br />said their only other alternative is to build a two -story house, and they would prefer not to <br />do so. <br />• Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the <br />property. She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future. <br />Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. <br />Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% <br />allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they <br />attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. <br />McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional <br />hardcover in the 75 -250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the <br />proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its <br />changes from the existing structure. <br />There were no public comments. <br />McMillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed <br />the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment <br />letters from the neighbors. <br />Schroeder asked if the 3 -car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan <br />was proportionate. <br />