Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, March 17, 2003 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) <br /> Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the required variances to allow the <br /> second story addition over the existing residence and garage with the following conditions: <br /> 1. If during construction it is determined that the portion of the foundation within the 75' <br /> setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the Planning <br /> Commission and the City Council for further review. <br /> 2. If the larger deck located by the lakeshore should need repairs or replacement, it is non- <br /> conforming and would need the necessary approvals to remain. <br /> 3. Planning Commission should review the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone for <br /> further removals if necessary. <br /> Furthermore,because the screen porch and bay window are new structure to be located <br /> within the 75' setback, Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of these two <br /> proposals. <br /> Chair Smith asked if the net hardcover of the new plans was less than what was proposed <br /> in the first draft. <br /> Bottenberg stated that the hardcover is more than previously proposed, since the screen <br /> porch was not moved back out of the 75' setback as originally shown. She indicated that <br /> the deck, staff believed would be removed, remains. <br /> Chair Smith asked if, during the process, there were problems discovered with the <br /> foundation, whether the applicants understood that they could not proceed. <br /> Mr. Adams passed out prepared colored layouts displaying the hardcover removals and <br /> additions, as well as, the new home as proposed versus the existing. He maintained that <br /> the existing screen porch would protrude no more into the 0-75' setback than it does today. <br /> Berg asked if the proposed bay window would be over the deck. <br /> Mr. Adams explained that the bay window would be to the side of the deck and porch. <br /> With regard to the overages in hardcover, Rahn questioned, as Mabusth had in the <br /> February meeting, why the applicant needed so much hardcover in the driveway. He <br /> argued that more removals could be gained in the driveway. <br /> Adams pointed out that the driveway was purposefully cut between trees in order to avoid <br /> their removal. He stated that large vehicles or trailers could not maneuver the driveway <br /> without the circle, and could only enter and exit from a certain direction. <br /> Chair Smith questioned the need for the second turnaround. <br /> PAGE 2 of 24 <br />