03-20-2000 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MARCH 20, 2000 • (#2564 William Dampier, Continued) incorrect. Dampier stated the stairs in his view should be considered as part of the house. Dampier stated the existing decks on the house are in a deteriorating condition and need to be replaced. Dampier stated the hardcover numbers for his driveway should be reduced by a substantial amount since the driveway consists of bricks laid in dirt which has a fair amount of grass growing inbetween the bricks Dampier reiterated the majority of the homes in the Casco Point neighborhood are non-conforming to the existing City Codes, and urged the Planning Commission to approve his application tonight based on the reduction in existing hardcover and structural coverage, the improvements to the existing drainage, and the increase in tax base, which is a benefit to the City as a whole. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn stated a large portion of the Applicant's comments were directed towards zoning of Casco Point, which the Planning Commission is not in a position to address tonight. Dampier indicated he understands that position. Hawn stated what is defined as structural coverage and non-structural coverage is not open to debate with City Staff. Hawn stated City Ordinance stipulates certain hardcover and structural coverage numbers which must be adhered to by the Planning Commission, City Council, and residents. Hawn stated normally stairs are not considered structural coverage, but if a deck is located higher than six feet off the ground, it is considered structural coverage. Hawn stated if the • Applicant were to replace the deck and reduce the height of the deck, it would not be considered structural coverage. Hawn stated the major obstacle with this application is the increase in structural coverage, and an option offered by City Staff was to reduce the height of the deck. Dampier stated the deck as it currently exists today serves a handicapped member of his family. The American Disabilities Act precludes making that deck inaccessible by a handicapped person. Kluth stated City Staff or the Planning Commission is not requiring the Applicant to remove the deck, but merely has offered that as an option to reduce the amount of structural coverage on the property. Dampier stated that he was assured by previous City Staff that this deck would not pose a problem. Hawn remarked that City Staff is not in a position to say what will and what will not be approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. Hawn stated City Staff attempts to provide guidance to the Applicants on the rules and regulations the Applicants need to comply with. Hawn stated she would like to help the Applicant on this plan as much as possible, and one option for reducing structural coverage on the property is being reducing the height of the deck. Hawn stated she historically does not approve applications where there is an increase in structural coverage when the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Dampier stated he is not in agreement with the structural and hardcover figures listed in City Staffs report. Lindquist concurred that typically the Planning Commission will not approve structural coverage over the allowable 15 percent, especially if the Applicant is already over the allowable limit. Lindquist • stated the maximum structural coverage that will be allowed by the Planning Commission is what Page 10