#6595-variances-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6595 A6. The addition to the building under the revised proposal expands its footprint to approximately 22.1' x 42.5' or 939 s.f, making it subject to a minimum side setback of 15'. Because there is an additional existing 819 s.f detached garage on the property, the added covered deck will bring the total accessory structure square footage for the property to 1,758 s.f, within the 2,000 s.f combined accessory structure limit for this size property. AT The property is technically a `through lot' because it has frontage on Spates Avenue and backs up to undeveloped Grand Avenue, requiring accessory structures to meet principal structure setbacks. Also, the addition constitutes expansion of a non -conforming structure and does not meet the zoning code criteria for such an expansion. A8. The location of the existing accessory building is nearer the street than most other principal buildings in the immediate neighborhood. Additionally, its distance from and somewhat lack of a visual connection to the principal residence it serves, makes it unique. The addition to the building will maintain its decades -old character as a fixture in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The structure is not the primary garage serving the residence, and expanding it to the rear with a covered porch should have no perceived impact on traffic or safety in the neighborhood. A9. Extending the covered deck northward at the same 4 -foot side setback as the existing structure is not strictly in keeping with the Zoning Code requirements for expansion of an existing non -conforming structure. The 4 -foot setback coupled with the proposed 1.5 - foot overhangs results in an additional 10 feet of eave dripline less than 3 feet from the neighboring property to the west. From a practical standpoint, it would be appropriate to require gutters so that runoff can be directed away from the adjoining property. The visual impact of the minimal side setback will primarily be to the immediately adjacent property owner to the west. That adjacent owner has not objected to the addition. A10. The existing building is considered as a lawful non -conforming residential accessory building, and per Zoning Code Section 78-71(c)(3)b may be expanded only if the expansions comply with all height, setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the zoning district. The setback requirements cannot be met, resulting in this variance request. Because the existing structure encroaches upon the lot line setback, the Code intends that as part of the expansion the existing structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Again, this is not feasible unless the entire structure is relocated to some other location on the property. A11. The exis`dng accessory building was administratively approved for installation of a toilet and sink in 2010 and the owners executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building. An aspect of that approval was installation of a sewage ejector system directly Page 3 of 8