Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE R �T <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 19,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. . <br /> Jurgens indicated he likes the nan owing of the driveway and removal of some of the other hardcover. <br /> Jurgens reiterated he would like to see the size of the deck reduced. <br /> Mrs. Anderson stated they are making a reduction in the amount of hardcover with what they have <br /> proposed. <br /> C losQ r�-C� <br /> Bremer stated this is an opportunity for the City to bring this property��o compliance with the <br /> City's hardcover standards. Bremer stated in her view this project is very close to being a rebuild rather <br /> �¢�C�c>Se. 1� tS w� f�v�diini k�2� wo��c� �rob ft�D cre,4- ►ncre. 41Arc�co�+E� <br /> than a remodel,a at <br /> �nd lo�!- co�P.v��c�� -�harn <br /> would be allowed on a rebuild. <br /> Bremer pointed out that considerable square footage is being added in the 0-75' zone by adding the <br /> second story. Bremer recommended the applicants consider their options for expanding the inside <br /> de�-K. <br /> storage and that she would support reduction in the size of the pe�e�r. <br /> Bremer inquired whether it is a design problem to do the garage as Staff is recommending or whether it <br /> should remain as is. � � ' <br /> Alexander stated from her perspective being squared off would be better. <br /> Kempf stated the Planning Commission has the ability to require property owners to bring their lots <br /> more into compliance and that it is nat a slam dunk to add a second story. � <br /> Rahn stated the design gives the structure the appearance of a story and a half rather than a two-story, <br /> which makes the second story less of an issue. <br /> Alexander inquired whether more of the concrete pad could be removed on the walkout level as well as <br /> narrowing of the driveway,with half of the existing deck being removed. <br /> Turner stated the issue is more than hardcover and that the deck is located high enough off the ground <br /> that it might be considered structural coverage. Tumer indicated another issue is the location of the <br /> deck.5 o c.los.e_ � �'�Q. `�k2 • ' <br /> Rahn commented decks are not always pernlanent and that they can be removed. <br /> Bremer inquired�vhether there was a permit for the deck. <br /> PAGE 12 <br />