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 /> Adams indicated that the second turnaround serves the second set of garages. He added <br /> that he was having a storage garage built and would soon be storing some of his things off <br /> site. <br /> Alexander stated that the applicant had obtained neighbor's signatures in support of his <br /> design. <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> Hawn asked if the Planning Commission could set out explicit consequences to the <br /> applicant, if it is uncovered that the foundation or headers cannot support the weight of the <br /> additional story etc. She was anxious that the applicant know what to expect if they are <br /> forced to return before the Commission and Council. <br /> With regard to the structural engineer's report, Alexander explained that the headers are <br /> above the garage and not foundation related. <br /> Chair Smith asked if staff found the structural engineer's report acceptable. <br /> Bottenberg stated that staff had accepted the report. <br /> Hawn asked if it would be possible to push the screen porch out of the 0-75' setback. <br /> Adams stated that the current proposal does push the screen porch 3' back from where it <br /> exists currently. He was hesitant to cut it back further in an effort to keep the porch <br /> functional. <br /> Alexander stated that they had removed 48 s.f. of deck from the 0-75' setback, and that <br /> only 38 s.f. of the deck still protrudes into that setback with this design. <br /> Chair Smith complimented the applicant for looking at what could be done, providing <br /> color illustrations, and not increasing hardcover. She indicated that she could support staff <br /> recommendations, which included denial of the bay window. <br /> Rahn felt the massing issue was taken under consideration with the design; however, he <br /> believed that overages in hardcover clearly dictated the need to lose additional hardcover <br /> in the driveway. He reiterated that the applicant needed to do more to come in under the <br /> 33%hardcover amount. <br /> Adams maintained that he would be required to lose trees if he were forced to widen the <br /> driveway. He indicated that the current configuration allows him to maneuver the <br /> driveway more easily in the winter due to grade and elevation difficulties. Adams stated <br /> PAGE 3 of 24 <br />