Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 20,2000 <br />(02636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) <br />Stoddard noted if this application is denied, he utwld need to wait for six months before <br />submitting a new application. <br />l b%vn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his applieation tabled. Hawti stated <br />that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires. <br />Mrs. Cible inquired whether they could still proceed with construction of the residence as <br />originally proposed <br />liawn stated they could proceed w ith construction in accordance with the building permit. Hawn <br />stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until <br />January at the earliest. <br />Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the <br />additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk. <br />Hawn inquired w hether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the <br />driveway and sidewalk meeting the 25 percent hardco^or limit and removal of the ice house. <br />Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the side\%alk possibly consisting of stepping stones. <br />Lindquist stated if this application is denied, they could still proceed under the b , . wit. <br />Lindquist staled they need to sta\' within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the <br />Smith conimcnted if the ice house is removed, that would give the Applicants ^n additional <br />96 feet of hardcover. <br />Hawn reiteiated the Planning Commission tspically does not grant any variances to structural <br />coverage or hardcover on new construction Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their <br />plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building otHcial. <br />Mrs. Cable inquired w hether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they <br />decide to keep it at this time. <br />Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more tlian 25 percent of the <br />foundation is replaced. <br />Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of <br />the structure, the repairs are not permitted. <br />Gaffron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the lime it became non-conforming. <br />Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled. <br />Cable stated they would like their application tabled. <br />Lindquist rescinded his motion. <br />PAGE 11