Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19 2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. #13-3619 PAUL AND JESSICA WARNER, 1380 BRIAR STREET, VARIANCES, 7:52 P.M. to 7:59 P.M. Paul Warner, Applicant, was present. Council Exhibit F Curtis stated the applicants are requesting side, front, and rear y~ff~etb3:,¢1tj,1/ariances in order to construct additions to the existing home. The applicants' current 8Q0squarefootµorne was built in the 1920s. According to the City's records, the detached garage wa~construct~dnf19"5,?'.11p? an addition to the home was constructed in 1958. The property is 160 feet w~debyonly8].5 feetdeetandthe required 50-foot front and rear setbacks overlap. The property does notcorifo~t6:the two act,:JJ1:~iinUJ!ll~!·size of the RR-1 B District. . . . . The applicants' existing home is set back 15.8 feet fromt~~frbn{p:i9pertr line. The applicants are proposing 2 one-story additions to the existing residence. '.JThe northei:n aii.dition will consist of 442 square feet and the addition on the south will be 790 square feet incl11dinglhe11~w attached garage space. An 83 square foot portion of the existing home wjtl b,~ remoyed/incorporatei? fiifq the garage addition. In total, the additions will nearly double the amountbfstrllc;;tµralcoverage ontheproperty but will conform to the 15 percent limitation. The applicants are also proposing to construct~low, uiicover~dpor6h 18:inches above grade along the front of the home. The uncovered porch is proposed,•toericroach')'ithin.9.5 feet of the front property line, which is acceptable if it conforms totl!,enon-encroa~~ents prp~~jon for uncovered porches in the Zoning Code. The applicants are alsq . osing to fiib,prpora,tea•decorative planter/bench element into the porch design. The planter and b(. , which will not bean:;integral part of the porch, will sit on the floor of the porch and be moy3:,l:,le. Uowever, it could give tlieappearance of an additional two feet to the height of the front porch. · Curtis note,~t11epropo~~d p.9rtherly ad~f#C>11-w'ill11ot encroach closer to the rear property line than the existingllpllle,; The,aPt>~~c~ts are proposing ana~ched garage addition on the south side of the house whichisproposed to be $e;t~~c~J9 feet from the rear where a 50-foot setback is required. The garage adqitioi;i will encroach 19 f'eetclpserto the rear lot line than the existing home. ,;•";;-, ·; ·•/·,·· Th~c~Jci~ting one-stall detached g~geis proposed to be removed. The separation from the adjacent propei-typrith~south will be impr()tr~.'with removal of the garage and construction of the addition. Howeve~lthe,addition will stillencre>ach 15 plus feet into the required 30-foot setback. Staff finds thi size and 9imensi9ns of the property serve as a practical difficulty with prevents development ofthis prop¢rty.:/fhe applicants' existing home is, to a degree, driving the additions. However, it is not possible focbnstruct a home in a conforming location on the property. Curtis noted one neighbor comment was received today and has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners for inclusion in the record. Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Landgraver asked if the letter received today was generally supportive of the application. Curtis indicated it was. Page 13 of 28