Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR \L\RCH 20,2000 <br />structural coverage. Hawn stated the major obstacle with this application is the increase in <br />structural coverage, and an option offered by City Staff was to reduce the height of the deck. <br />□ampler stated the deck as it currently exists today serves a handicapped member of his family. <br />The American Disabilities Act precludes making that deck inaccessible by a handicapped person. <br />Kluth stated City Staff or the Planning Commission is not requiring the Applicant to remove the <br />deck, but merely has offered that as an option to reduce the amount of structural coverage on the <br />property. <br />□ampler stated that he was assured by previous City Staff that this deck would not pose a problem. <br />Hawn remarked that City Staff Is not in a position to say what will and what will not be approve^y <br />the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated City Staff attempts to provide guidance to <br />the Applicants on the rules and regulations the Applicants need to comply with. Hawn stated she <br />would like to help the Applicant on this plan as much as possible, and one option for reducing <br />structural coverage on the property is being reducing the height of the deck. <br />Hawn stated she historically does not approve applications where there is an increase in structural <br />coverage when the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. <br />□ampler stated he is not in agreement with the structural and hardcover figures listed in City Staffs <br />report. <br />Lindquist concurred that typically the Planning Commission will not approve structural coverage over <br />the allowable 15 percent, especially if the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Lindquist <br />stated the maximum structural coverage that will be allowed by the Planning Commission is what <br />currently exists on the property. <br />□ampler stated he is willing to accept Bottenberg's numbers on the hardcover, □ampier stated he <br />Is somewhat confused because the front deck is considered structural but the rear deck is not. <br />Nygard stated as he understands the American □isabilities Act, the handicap access itself does not <br />count towards your hardcover. <br />Weinberger stated the American □isabilities Act does provide for one handicap access to the home, <br />Page 15 <br />i