Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 22,2008 <br /> ' 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3338 Thomas and Katherine Ziegler,Continued) <br /> Chair Kempf opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Kempf closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. <br /> Kempf noted the existing structural coverage is over 15 percent,with the proposed structural coverage <br /> under the new plan being reduced to less than 15 percent at 14.98. In addition,the hardcover in the 0-75 <br /> foot zone and the 75-250 foot zone has been reduced. Kempf asked whether the height of the structure <br /> remains the same. <br /> Turner stated it does. <br /> Kempf stated in his view the deck on the second story does not have a negative impact. Kempf asked <br /> whether a resident can utilize a private right-of-way for a parking space and plantings and what impact <br /> that would have on the City's right to utilize that section of the property. <br /> Turner stated with a 15-foot setback, a portion of the vehicle will be located in the right-of-way, and <br /> there is a question whether the minimum setback should be increased to eliminate that. <br /> Kempf stated another option would be to locate the garage door on the end of the garage but that it <br /> would result in an increase in the hardcover. <br /> Ziegler pointed out there is also a utility easement in that area. <br /> Turner stated Public Works has indicated the sewer is shallow and perhaps it would be best if the <br /> driveway were not located over it. The proposed trees to be planted would also be reviewed to ensure <br /> that they are acceptable,but that they would help to buffer the front of the house and block headlights. <br /> Turner stated the right-of-way is City property. <br /> Ziegler stated they would like the trees to serve as a buffer for the deck area and the front of the house <br /> and that they are completely aware that the City has the right to remove the trees if they feel it is <br /> necessary. <br /> Kempf commented in his view the trees help to improve the property and that he does not have an issue <br /> with the application. Kempf stated the porch on the second floor would need to remain an open porch. <br /> Ziegler stated neither porch would have any windows or screening. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether the foundation would be replaced and why the house cannot be pushed <br /> further back. <br /> Ziegler stated the foundation would be replaced and the basement would be eliminated. Ziegler <br /> indicated he is unable to relocate the house further back due to a utility easement and that they are only <br /> � allowed under state statute to reconstruct in the same location as the existing house. Ziegler commented <br /> his original intent was to just remodel the structure but Staff had suggested that they consider replacing <br /> PAGE 11 <br />