08-20-2001 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNXNG COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, July 16,2001 (#01-2693 David And Maryann Maiser, Continued) porch/deck addition increases the hardcover 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 arc essentially adding a two-car garage over an existing concrete driveway. The house currently has a two-ca-- 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/dcck 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 equired to be met to the road, and the proposed porch encroaches 8 ’ into the 35* setback, requiitng an additional variance. Mabuith stated that she thought the existing garage was going to be remov ed. Mr. Maiser confirmed that it would not be removed. Mr Maiser stated that landscaping plastic could be removed to address hardcover issues Lindquist replied that the landscape plastic would need to be removed if any v ariances are granted, and there would be no credit for it Mabusth asked for clarificition of the hardcover calculations regarding and replacement structure. Weinberger responded that in the past in some remodels the 7.r-250‘ zone had been considered fo- additional hardcover when thev didn’t meet the 25V» requirement. Mabusth noted the lot has many hardships including the angle o. ,iie houie. the 35* setback, a d the location of the 75’ setback. Excesses in hardcover alreadv exist and nothing can be removed e.xccpt the existing garage, which is located out of the 0-75’ setba .. area. She suggested tabling the appli.ation with direction to the applicants, such as major reductions in hardcover and no encroachments in the 0-75* zone fc»r 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