My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-21-2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
02-21-2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2018 4:06:49 PM
Creation date
1/18/2018 4:06:43 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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 <br /> Tuesday,February 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated the smaller lots believe they are being affected the most and another 120 feet of structure is <br /> quite a lot for that size of lot. <br /> Lemke asked if there is anything wrong with what the City has now. <br /> Thiesse stated the nice thing with the 15 percent is that the City has held pretty tightly to that and that the <br /> reason the City only saw four applications was because they were directed to reduce it. Thiesse stated <br /> very seldom does the City allow it to go beyond that. Thiesse indicated he can live with removing the <br /> deck from the calculation and leaving it at 15 percent but that in his view 20 percent is a lot. Thiesse <br /> stated if the deck is also removed from the structural coverage calculation, it could amount to a 40 percent <br /> increase on some lots. <br /> Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can choose to deny or make modifications to either of them. <br /> Thiesse asked what would happen under Option A if someone has a property with 35 percent hardcover <br /> and wants to reduce it down to 30 percent. <br /> Barnhart indicated those would be handled the same. <br /> Thiesse stated it could become a situation where the majority of it becomes structure. <br /> Barnhart stated if the hardcover limit is 35, someone could construct a house at 33 percent without a <br /> driveway and then say they require a driveway and need to go over the 35 percent. Barnhart stated <br /> someone will always try to push that envelope. Barnhart noted under Option B the structural coverage <br /> limit would be eliminated and people would only need to comply with the hardcover limit. <br /> Landgraver stated as it relates to Exhibit B, he would propose the Planning Commission not agree to the <br /> 20 percent but keep it at 15, not agree to the 2,000 square feet, agree to the highest point of the roof if <br /> more than six feet, and then accept the changes on the last page, which incorporates Commissioner <br /> Schoenzeit's comment of allowing decks but keeps it at 15 percent. <br /> Thiesse indicated he would like to keep the 1,500 square feet and allow decks to be excluded independent <br /> of its height off the ground. <br /> Gaffron stated one of the four applications last year was purely because a portion of the deck railing was <br /> above six feet and that those changes would eliminate only one variance request. <br /> Lemke asked if there would be a limit on the size of the deck. <br /> Thiesse stated they would still need to meet hardcover limits. <br /> Lemke stated the impact from a deck could be as much as a driveway. <br /> Schoenzeit stated someone could have 400 square feet of patio with a 400 square foot deck over it. <br /> Schoenzeit noted someone is allowed 100 square feet of deck. <br /> Gaffron stated the deck would need to meet the standard of quarter spacing in order to get the 100 foot <br /> credit. <br /> Page 28 of 32 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.