Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
. MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> hardcover on the lot and verification of whether the right-of-way is included in the hardcover numbers. <br /> Schoenzeit recommended the application be tabled. <br /> Paggen commented it has been surveyed four times by a land engineer and that he is not sure why they <br /> would need to have it resurveyed. <br /> Gaffron stated the interpretation of what should or should not be included does not appear to be correct on <br /> the survey. Gaffron stated according to his rough calculation, it appears the survey may not be <br /> completely accurate. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the applicant will need to verify the square footage of the lot and the hardcover on the <br /> lot. Schoenzeit recommended the applicant include the patio in the hardcover calculations. Schoenzeit <br /> noted the main issue with the proposal is the structural coverage and whether the right-of-way was <br /> included in the calculations. <br /> Gaffron stated the portion that should be excluded is the 66 feet of the driveway that is located within the <br /> right-of-way. <br /> Paggen stated the right-of-way and the curb should not be included. Paggen asked why that was not <br /> brought up during the review by the engineer of the application. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there are a number of reviews that the application goes through prior to approval and <br /> that the Planning Commission wants to ensure that due diligence has been exercised. Schoenzeit <br /> recommended the applicant provide the information as soon as possible if he would like his application to <br /> be on the February Planning Commission agenda. <br /> Paggen commented he would like to avoid having the application tabled if at all possible given the limited <br /> amount of work that still remains to be completed. <br /> Gozola stated the calculations that were provided by Mr.Brandt show the lot size to be 13,864 square feet <br /> and that the survey shows 17,259 square feet. Gozola indicated he did not count on the 17,000 figure in <br /> his calculations and instead relied on the numbers that were provided in the application. <br /> Gozola noted the structural coverage figure that was provided by the applicant show that they are under <br /> the 15 percent and asked whether the overage is a result of the patio. <br /> Gaffron stated according to his calculations,the actual square footage of the lot is closer to 11,900 square <br /> feet,which excludes the 66-foot right-of-way. Gaffron stated there are two surveys that are not to scale <br /> and that there are some question marks on the actual size of the lot. Gaffron stated the issue likely is how <br /> much of the county road was included,which will need to be verified. <br /> Paggen commented he has a problem with tabling the application because there are a couple of surveys <br /> that are not to scale. Paggen indicated it is frustrating to have it tabled after he has spent a lot of time, <br /> energy and money on the application. <br /> Schoenzeit pointed out Staff needs reliable numbers to correctly reflect what is on the lot and what is <br /> being proposed. Schoenzeit noted the survey says there is 17,000 square feet and the application says <br /> 13,000 square feet. <br /> Page 9 <br />