08/18/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#12 #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, Continued) The applicants are proposing to further increase their hardcover by 42 s.f for a staircase addition to their existing deck, and are requesting for the hardcover to remain over the maximum with a total of 5314 s.f. within the 75'-250' (32.2%). Foth stated that it would be staff's recommendation to: ✓ Deny the after-the-fact variance to encroach into the 75' lakeshore setback. ✓ Approve the after-the-fact hardcover variance with the following stipulations: 1. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 2. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75' zone amounting to 1.7 %. 3. Removal of the shed in the 0-75' zone. 4. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27%coverage (total allowed to remain 4,464 s.f.. Hardship: Staff does not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to exceed 27% in the 75'-250'zone. Chair Smith questioned whether Engineer Kellogg's recommendation should be included as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Hutton explained that they were faced with major runoff problems after removing the original blacktop in 2000; therefore, they were forced to replace the blacktop. The applicants shared a picture board of photos showing the spring water runoff damage to the living space and garage caused by the removal of the blacktop. Chair Smith encouraged the applicants to consider the recommendations made by the City Engineer to consult a landscape engineer to build drainage swales in lieu of the blacktop. Mr. Hutton maintained that their home is located very low on the property and street; therefore, is subject to the entire neighborhood's runoff. He maintained that huge amounts of runoff flows through his property each spring and they did not wish to face the water problems again. Chair Smith asked what else on the property could be removed to reduce hardcover. Mr. Hutton indicated that a small concrete deck in back could be removed for a small gain, as well as, a portion of the turnaround in the driveway, and a small portion of retaining wall. He pointed out that they had few removal options and, in fact, stated that they had asked the City to allow them to build an attached garage higher up in 2000 and were told that was not a good planning option. Gaffron stated that the calculations reflect a difference of 808 s.f. as to what was originally approved. PAGE 21 of 30