Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> APRIL 16, 2001 <br /> (#01-2664 Mitch and Kim Olson,Continued) <br /> reconstruct retaining walls in the 0-75' zone. <br /> Bottenberg stated the current survey received by the City shows that the required deck removals were <br /> never completed by the previous property owner, although the decks were inspected in 1986. The <br /> current owners have agreed to remove all unapproved portions of deck as well as additional portions <br /> as part of the current request. The deck segments approved as non-hardcover in 1985, are now <br /> considered hardcover under current code, and have been included in the hardcover calculations. <br /> City Staff feels the Applicants have made a good faith effort to reduce the size of the garage addition <br /> and bring the decks into conformity with the prior approvals. Although hardcover and lot coverage <br /> will still exceed City standards, the Applicants' proposal does result in slight reductions of hardcover <br /> and lot coverage. Staff would like the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed <br /> reductions are adequate and appropriate given the stated hardships and the nature of the site. <br /> The Applicants had no comments in addition to Staff's report. <br /> Lindquist inquired what the hardcover would be in the 0-75' zone. <br /> Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 0-75' zone would be reduced to 288 square feet rather than <br /> 249 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants have indicated they would like to retain some of the <br /> retaining walls in this area. <br /> Hawn inquired what the hardcover would be had the previous property owner complied with the <br /> agreement pursuant to the variance request. <br /> Bottenberg stated the portion of the deck that was to have been removed amounts to 384 square feet. <br /> Hawn questioned whether the rock and plastic are included in the hardcover numbers. <br /> Bottenberg stated the Applicants are planning on removing all existing rock and plastic underlayment. <br /> Hawn inquired whether the rock located at the rear of the house is the rock that will be removed. <br /> Olson stated they would be removing all rock and plastic. Olson stated they were unaware of the <br /> requirement to remove a portion of the deck until only recently. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the two keystone retaining walls are the walls that will be removed. <br /> Olson stated the keystone wall bordering the two properties would not be removed. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the small deck would be removed. <br /> Olson stated that it would be. <br /> Mabusth inquired what the orange-colored structure located under the deck was. <br /> PAGE 2 <br />