Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD MAY 20, 1991 <br />(#3)ZONING FILE #1545-LUTZ CONTINUED <br />Gaffron replied, "Staff's interpretation is that a wall <br />extending beyond six feet in height, attached to the house, would <br />be considered as part of the principal structure, rather than a <br />fence. The six foot \/all will be attached to the house, and to <br />the deck which will be I*} feet above grade level. If Planning <br />Conunission wishes to consider this structure as a fence, then a <br />fence height Variance would be required." <br />Kelley asked Mr. Lutz if he has discussed his plans with his <br />neighbors on each side of him. <br />Lutz indicated that neither neighbor raised objections when <br />Rodwell's filed this application, and to his knowledge there have <br />been no subsequent objections. <br />Gaffron advised that the everyone v/ithin 150 feet of the <br />Lutz property were re-notified of the revised plans submitted by <br />Mr. Lutz. <br />Kelley asked Mr. Lutz to state what he believes are the <br />hardships that support his request for a Variance. <br />Lutz replied, "I view the hardships as being the shape of <br />the lot and the re-zoning of the property which changed the <br />setback requirements from what was required in 1971 when the <br />house was constructed." <br />Bellows asked Mr. Lutz if it is his intention to keep the <br />screen porch as such, and not convert it into a room addition. <br />There were no comments from the public pertaining to this <br />application, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. <br />Bellows asked v/hether it may be appropriate to place the <br />applicant on notice that any further upgrade to the screen porch <br />will require additional approval from the City. <br />Gaffron advised that Staff viewed the screen porch as a full <br />addition to the house, and that if the Variance is approved, <br />enclosing it within the roof and v/all lines of the screened area <br />should be allowed without a future Variance. <br />It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Cohen, to recommend that <br />Council approve the side setback Variance to construct a <br />three-season porch, and side and rear setback Variances '•o <br />construct a 7’6" privacy wall. The hardships on which this <br />recommendation is based are the shape of the lot and the change <br />in zoning. Kelley added that, in his opinion, any further <br />requests for Variances to the rear (south yard) of the property <br />would not be as favorably considered. All voted aye. Motion <br />carried. <br />- 5 -