Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, June 16, 2003 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#4 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) <br /> There were no public comments. <br /> While the total lot area indicates the Nagel's have 23,210 s.f., Ms. Nagel pointed out that, in <br /> reality, they have 1.6 acres, as a portion of their property is across the channel. She questioned <br /> whether they could include this square footage in their lot calculation. <br /> Gaffron noted that, over the past 2-3 years, the City has not considered severed property in the <br /> lot calculation, and he believed including it would be a totally new way of looking at these types <br /> of properties. He indicated that, in addition, it would require a great deal of survey work and, <br /> potentially,be precedent setting. <br /> Nagel asked if they could back the garage up 1 1/2' to alleviate the street setback variance. <br /> Hawn indicated that the structural cover and hardcover variance requirements were different. She <br /> stated that the applicants would need to hold to the 15% structural coverage limitation; however, <br /> by sliding back the garage the hardcover variance request would be eliminated. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that the proposed bump-out would be acceptable if the garage addition was <br /> left out. <br /> Zugschwert, Rahn, and Bremer all concurred with staff's recommendation. <br /> Hawn felt the applicants were close and could meet staff's recommendations with a few more <br /> modifications. <br /> While all could support sliding back the garage and maintaining the 15% structural cover, Chair <br /> Smith asked for opinions on the hardcover. <br /> Mabusth indicated that she could support approving all but the garage addition. <br /> Since it would be staff's recommendation to get back to the 1999 approvals, Gaffron indicated <br /> that blacktop would need to be removed and, since 1% is equal to 232 s.f., virtually, the entire <br /> garage addition would need to be wiped out. <br /> Nagel agreed to table the application in order to work with staff on specific goals of the plan. She <br /> asked whether the Commission or staff felt the wetland survey should be pursued. <br /> Gaffron could not comment whether the City Council or Commission would wish to use wetland <br /> or separated land as part of lot area calculations. Since the entire code would need to be <br /> reconsidered, which staff would not support, he didn't believe it was worth pursuing. <br /> Page 8 of 22 <br />