Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3147 STEVE AND JANNA SUNDBY, CONTINUED) <br /> Bremer noted this type of application is becoming more common and that the Planning Commission will <br /> try to give the applicant good direction on what is and is not allowed. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the applicant constructed this residence. <br /> Sundby stated he did not. <br /> Leslie inquired why gutters would not solve this problem. <br /> Sundby indicated there was a gutter on the residence previously but that in a heavy downpour the water <br /> overflows the gutter and it was not sufficient for taking the water away from that area. <br /> Leslie inquired whether a larger gutter could be installed. <br /> Sundby stated his builder recommended the covered entryway. <br /> Jurgens stated diverters could also be utilized and that there are some other options that could be <br /> explored. Jurgens stated in his view gutters could resolve this situation. <br /> Bremer noted an application similar to this was approved on Fagerness Point. <br /> Winkey stated he does not have a problem with the application given the issues that need to be addressed. <br /> Jurgens inquired what the area on top of the covered entryway is. <br /> Sundby stated the fence is merely for aesthetics and was put on there by the architect. Sundby stated there <br /> is not a deck located in that area. Sundby pointed out they are covering an existing hardcover surface and <br /> that no new hardcover would be created. <br /> Jurgens commented the water would be diverted elsewhere and would likely still cause problems. <br /> Sundby stated a gutter would be installed on the overhang. <br /> Kempf stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey. Kempf stated structural coverage has a lot <br /> to do with the massing and that there are some lots where this type of covered entryway would be more <br /> noticeable. Kempf stated the intrusion is on the inside angle of the L where it would have minimal <br /> impact. Kempf noted there is not an adjoining residence on the side this entryway is being constructed <br /> and that in his view the applicant has provided sufficient evidence depicting the need for a covered <br /> entryway. <br /> Bremer noted the applicant has submitted a letter, four photographs, and a pest control invoice. Bremer <br /> stated in her view this applicant has made a compelling case for the covered entryway. <br /> PAGE 21 <br />