My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
01/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2012 3:19:07 PM
Creation date
8/20/2012 3:19:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Gozola <br /> noted the City has not received any comments from any of the neighbors. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whaYthe structural coverage is on the lot and noted that the site is allowed a little over <br /> 2,000 square feet according to his math. <br /> Gozola noted structural coverage is listed on Page 2. The overall lot size is 13,864 square feet,with a <br /> proposed building coverage of 1,960 square feet,which would result in them being under the structural <br /> coverage limit. <br /> Schoenzeit noted the survey states there is over 17,000 square feet of land and that one of the two <br /> numbers is inaccurate. <br /> Gozola indicated he will verify the structural coverage number. <br /> Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission should address the driveway in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Gozola indicated that the City's hardcover regulations allow for driveways in the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> Landgraver asked if the pad for the existing garage is included in the hardcover calculations. <br /> Gozola stated on his site visit,there was a slight layer of snow on the ground and that he was not able to <br /> tell whether it was still there. Gozola stated according to the survey's existing conditions, it does not <br /> appear that the pad still exists. <br /> Levang asked whether there is any mitigation proposed for the current driveway in terms of a rain garden <br /> or other items. <br /> Gozola indicated the City Engineer did not recommend any mitigation. The City Engineer recommended <br /> the applicant work with them at the time the building permit is issued. <br /> John Paggen,Roberts Residential Remodeling,noted Anna and Collin Peters currently own the property <br /> and are residing in the home. On the report provided by the engineering company,there is a small typo <br /> that references 3538 North Shore Drive. That document later references the correct address. <br /> The property owners are proposing to remodel the existing home.With respect to the old abandoned path <br /> for the garage,that has been removed. During this process,the homeowner elected to remove that and the <br /> new hardcover calculations do reflect the omission of that area. Due to the fact that the property borders <br /> on two water fronts,there are two 0-75 foot zones,and the hardcover numbers have been recalculated per <br /> Staff s request. <br /> Paggen stated as far as the recommendations from the engineers,the home is existing and the current <br /> elevations will continue. The current home is a small cabin structure and there is no real defined pitch of <br /> the roof. The existing roofline is located in the middle on the drawings and it is located approximately <br /> eight feet into the side yard setback. The drawings should have lines drawn through the existing home <br /> showing where the improvements will be made after that 8-foot mark. They will not be modifying the <br /> existing roofline. <br /> Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.