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