Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 18,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3106 Cindy and Brad McDonnell,Continued) <br /> McDonnell noted they have reduced the size of the proposed landing once they learned of the hardcover <br /> and structural coverage limitations. <br /> Mr. McDonnell stated the current landing is small and does not safely accommodate their grandparents <br /> and other visits to the lot. <br /> Mrs. McDonnell reiterated they would like the project to be visually appealing and have scaled back their <br /> plans after becoming aware of the regulations. McDonnell stated they have a small lot and are unable to <br /> reduce the garage or house. <br /> Mr.McDonnell stated they would like to make the house pleasing and functional but would like to <br /> construct a covered entry due for safety reasons. <br /> Mrs.McDonnell indicated they are re-siding their house and doing some landscaping and that they are <br /> willing to make their property more conforming with the hardcover limits. <br /> Mr.McDonnell indicated they are willing to reduce their driveway somewhat. <br /> Jurgens stated he would like to see the structural coverage reduced as much as possible. Jurgens inquired <br /> whether the deck in the front is considered structural coverage. <br /> Curtis stated that deck would be considered hardcover. <br /> Jurgens commented he understands the safety issue but that the covered porch entry would need to remain <br /> as small as possible. <br /> Rahn stated in this particular case it does appear to be a safety issue and it would be over existing <br /> hardcover. <br /> Mrs.McDonnell stated she would be in favor of a minimally sized entry if it would be aesthetically <br /> pleasing. <br /> Mr. McDonnell pointed out there is a window located close to the door, and if they are required to reduce <br /> the size of the porch,the post would be in the center of the window. <br /> Rahn indicated he would be in favor of 77 square feet. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Kempf stated what is being proposed is basically for aesthetics and functionality and that in his view an <br /> aesthetically pleasing landing could be accomplished with a smaller amount of square footage. <br /> PAGE 29 <br />