03-20-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 23. 2000 (#2558 Anthony Patterson, Continued) existing residence to be expanded from a one and a half story to a full two story house. Bottenberg stated the Applicant was issued a permit for construction on the second story as long as the construction did not occur within the 10 foot side yard setback. The Applicants were advised by the Building Inspector that the variances could be denied. Bottenberg stated tl's Applicants have redesigned the deck to eliminate it from protruding into the setback area, lowering the hardcover calculations in this setback area to 0 percent, which eliminates the need for any variance. The existing deck located in the 75'-250 ‘ setback area has been reduced from 291 square feet to 235 square feet, in the combined setback areas, total deck square footage is reduced from 285 square feet existing to 220 square feet proposed. Bottenberg indicated the Applicants had originally proposed to construct a side entry consisting of 165 square feet. They have reduced the side entry to 80 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are still proposing to remove 95 square feet of driveway and 128 square feet of sidewalk. Bottenberg noted a variance is still required for hardcover within the 75*250' setback area, with the proposed hardcover being calculated at 41.4 percent. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has been informed of the difference between hardcover and structural coverage, but is still requesting a variance to structural coverage to allow for 15.9 percent. The existing structural coverage for the lot is 1,977 square feet or 15.7 percent. The Applicant has indicated he would like to keep the side entry at 8* by 10*. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances for lot coverage and side yard setback, approval of the variance for hardcover in the 75*250' setback area, including the sidewalk and full driveway. A new survey showing revisions should be submitted to City Staff for approval before a building permit will be issued. Patterson stated he has become aware of the differences between hardcover and structural coverage, noting he was left with the impression after the last Planning Commission meeting that structural coverage could be reduced from the proposed 18.7 percent down to 18.2 percent by removing a portion of the deck and reducing the side entry. Patterson stated they were informed of the need to comply with the 15 percent limit later on, noting they have attempted to comply with the limits as much as possible. Hawn commented the Applicant has made progress on this application, but stated she still has a problem with the proposed structural coverage. Hawn stated she will allow the Applicant to replace what was existing, but she is not in favor of increasing structural coverage any further than what currently exists. Hawn expressed a concern that the Applicant may have a problem navigating a vehicle in the driveway if it should be reduced. Hawn noted the property should have a sidewalk to access the garage. Patterson stated they have conducted some tests on the reduced driveway and feel that it will be acceptable. Kluth commented the minutes from the previous Planning Commission meeting reflect that the Applicant was advised the deck would be considered structural coverage, with a clear direction being given by the Planning Commission that they would not be in favor of any increases in hardcover or structural coverage. Hawn stated she is opposed to allowing the structural coverage to be increased beyond the existing Page 6 4 i