Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />HELD AUGUST 17, 1992 <br />(#4) #1750 CHARLES & SHIRLEY PYLE, <br />3548 IVY PLACE - , oe r, iljVARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 - 7:36 P.M. <br />The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. <br />Mr. Mrs. Pyle and Daryl Hanson were present for this <br />appiIcavI on. <br />Mabusth explained that the applicants were asked to reduce tne roof <br />structure at the last Planning Commission review. Thi applicants <br />now propose a root structure of 376 s.f. A lot coverage variance <br />i • still reo’'ired for the proposal. She added 172 s.f. of existing <br />hardcover along the northwest side of the house has been proposed <br />for removal. The result is a total reduction of 20* hardcover, from <br />72* in the 75-250’ setback area to approximately 52*. Lot coverage <br />is proposed at approximately 21*. <br />Mr. Pyle felt that the garage located closer to the house wou i a aod <br />to the aesthetic value of surrounding properties. He added the <br />hardcover along the northwest side of the house has already been <br />removed. He requested that if the plan is approved, tne existing <br />until the new garage is built.gara96 b6 al lowed to rerriain <br />Chair Kelley stated that is typically allowed. <br />Mr Pyle noted there are two oaks trees that would need to be <br />removed and replaced, but added because of other existing trees on <br />the property, they may have to look at other options. <br />Schroeder clarified the hardcover removed is non-structuraI <br />hardcover. <br />Chair Kelley stated he has a problem with the excessive lot <br />coverage. <br />Hanson advised that the existing residence is a two bedroom home, <br />with a two car garage, and already exceeds the lot coverage <br />standards. He indicated the roof structure was proposed to unify <br />the two structures. He added the roofed area wi I I serve as an <br />outside covered patio area. <br />Chair Kelley explained that the ict coverage ordinance is <br />relatively new. but i t provides that lots ao nor ger over-bui i t oti. <br />He added the ordinance is aimed at smaller lots, in order to <br />protect the visual impact of the pioperty.