08-20-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 16,2001 (#01-2693 David And Maryann Maiser, Continued) porch/deck addition increases the hardco\ er from almost 29 % to 30%. The proposed garage would be constructed over the existing driveway access; therefore no additional hardcover is created. Mr. Maiser commented that they are essentially adding a two-car garage over an existing concrete driveway. The house currently has a two-car tuck-under garage that holds only one car and is used mainly as a workshop. They also looked at adding a three-season porch under the deck that collapsed but it became non-functional. There were no public comments. Smith asked for a a review of what is considered "replacement" versus "new" structure. Weinberger indicated these areas on an overhead diagram. Hawn stated she had no problem with the garage or deck replacement, but had a concern with the porch/deck addition because it exceeds hardcover standards. Lindquist agreed with Hawn and stated that no additional hardcover should be allowed. No more structural coverage should be considered for the 75-250' setback. He would allow the hardcover that exists but no additional hardcover. Weinberger added that the Staff report did not indicate that a 35' setback is required to be met to the road, and the proposed porch encroaches 8' into the 35' setback, requiring an additional variance. Mabusth stated that she thought the existing garage was going to be removed. Mr. Maiser confirmed that it would not be removed. Mr. Maiser stated that landscaping plastic could be removed to address hardcover issues. I.indquist replied that the landscape plastic would need to be removed if any variances arc granted, and there would be no credit for it. Mabusth asked for clarification of the hardcover calculations regarding new and replacement structure. Weinberger responded that in the past in some remodels the 75-250' zone had been considered for additional hardcover when they didn ’t meet the 25% requirement. Mabusth noted the lot has many hardships including the angle of the house, the 35' setback, and the location of the 75' setback. Excesses in hardcover already exist and nothing can be removed e.xcept the existing garage, which is located out of the 0-75' setback area. She suggested tabling the application w ith direction to the applicants, such as major reductions in hardcover and no encroachments in the 0-75' zone for the porch/deck addition. Removal of the existing garage/workshop and the greenhouse may be options to reduce hardcover. Mrs. Maiser indicated that it may be possible to remove the greenhouse, but one of the main reasons they bought the property was because of the workshop area. Weinberger noted that 56% of the lot is within 75' of the lake, which creates a real challenge in working with improvements. PAGE 11 4