Laserfiche WebLink
MINITTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLA^NING COMMISSION I^IEETING <br />Wcdartday, Juairy 22.2003 <br />6:30o*clockp.m. <br />(»u^ 2861 ERIK THOMPSON, CoallDMcd) <br />Chair Smilh expressed her desire to see the lot coverage numbers decrease. <br />Thompson stated that he could get creative and would prefer to work to remove the shed instead of <br />additional house structure. <br />Retterath suggested they lower the new entry landing in order to remow its size from stnictural lot <br />coverage calculations, and instead impact hardcover. <br />Mabusih stated that she would prefer the applicant removr the shed, which would« m 129 s.f. and retain <br />the entry landing. <br />With regard to remodels. Bottenbag pointed out that, consistently, the Commission has found it <br />accepuble if cunent hardcover levels be mainUined. <br />Hawn stated that she would support removal of the shed. <br />Rahn asked if the proposed residetKe would be taller than the existing home. <br />Retterath stated that the sireetside would remain the same, however, the new height is over the existing <br />number. <br />Rahn inquired how the transition from the fir»t floor would be accumptivhcd. <br />Retterath stated that at least I '4 of the mam floor level would remain intact. <br />Thompson stated that he has gone to great lengths to remove all the debris, sample wallboard, access <br />panels to the foundation, etc. in order to allow inspectors to view the joists ete He added that much of the <br />plumbing and fixtures would be rec>cled in the proiect. <br />Retterath staled that ihe ceiling heights will vary on the first floor from 8-9’. all else would be changed <br />and removed to the caps and floorboards <br />Rahn quesuoned whether a stniciurai engineer had looked at the foundation. <br />Reitei Jih indicated that a structural engineer had hxvkcd at the foundatiot. to see what exists and found <br />that the pcnmeier was in decent shape with the only necessary change being modificaiions for a point <br />load within the cunent den. <br />Frit/ler stated that, in his opinion, recycling would not make a difference between the evaluation of the <br />remodel versus new construction <br />Gaffron stated that the curent characten/ation of the project appears to be much more now than the City- <br />had deemed before this e mng He questioned v. hetber the Commission ought to consider if this <br />application is going to be subjeci to some additional variance l.ita on. as was the first application the <br />Commission heard this evening. <br />PAGE 20 of 29