Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 21,2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) <br /> additional deck proposed to fill in the existing "u-shape" of the deck will add 4" of <br /> hardcover along 19.7' of width or 6.57 s.f.. Given this, the hardcover within this setback <br /> zone will increase to 593 s.f. (6.8%). <br /> With regard to lot coverage by structure, Chaput stated that the existing structures on the <br /> property include the house with lakeside deck and pool maintenance shed, totaling 3,074 <br /> s.f. (14.6%). Since the deck is proposed to increase in area from 399 s.f. to 550 s.f., the <br /> structural coverage increases to 3,225 s.f. (15.3%) where no more than 3,157 s.f. (15%) is <br /> permitted. <br /> Since the proposed deck expansion increases the amount of structural coverage on the <br /> property beyond the 15% limit and increases hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone, <br /> increasing the nonconformity, Chaput stated could not support the proposed addition <br /> (filling in the "u" area). <br /> Staff could support the deck replacement as it exists today,without the expansion, if the <br /> following hardcover removals were completed prior to footing inspection: <br /> 1. 87.5 s.f. of driveway encroaching onto the neighboring property; and <br /> 2. 488 s.f. of driveway, reducing hardcover to 404 s.f. (4.6%) in the 0-75' setback <br /> zone and to 6,150 s.f. (49.8%) in the 75'-250' setback zone. <br /> Chair Smith questioned whether there was anywhere they could remove the necessary 3% <br /> structural coverage. <br /> Mabusth had difficulty suggesting additional removals. She acknowledged that the <br /> driveway reduction would reduce hardcover in the 0-75' setback to 4.6%, which she could <br /> find acceptable. <br /> Mr. Obele indicated that the applicant was already cutting into existing concrete to place <br /> the footings, in order to avoid any additions to hardcover, and he could not come up with <br /> further removals to meet the requirement. <br /> Mabusth reiterated that she felt the applicant must not exceed the 15% structural coverage <br /> allowance. <br /> Chaput inquired about the shed on the property. <br /> Hawn suggested the applicants redesign the deck and fill in the'U' shape to meet the 15% <br /> allowance. She felt the issue was a structural coverage matter versus hardcover problem <br /> and suggested they work with the design by cutting off corners etc. <br /> PAGE 15 of 40 <br />