Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, October 17, 2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock�.m. <br /> (#05-3157 Martha Mason, Continued) <br /> The applicant is also proposing an open pergola addition to the front of the home to serve as a fi•ont entry <br /> piece. This pergola would extend seven feet closer to the street than the home in this area resulting in a <br /> setUack of 41.5 feet from the front lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. <br /> Curtis stated due to the angle of the existing home to the fi•ont lot line only the western corner of the home <br /> meets the required 50-foot setback. The applicant is proposing a 12-foot addition to the eastern end of the <br /> home resulting in more space within the home and moving the garage space to the east. Additionally,the <br /> applicant is proposing a 12' by 30.5' second story addition over the existing home stepped back two feet <br /> from the frotrt of the home resulting in a 46-foot setback for the second story where a 44-foot setback <br /> currently exists for the first story. <br /> Staff finds that the orientation of the existing home with respect to the front lot line may serve as a <br /> hardship and it may be n•ue that the existing setbacks are not inconsistent with the neighborhood; <br /> however,the additions could be redesigned to meet the required 50-foot setback. The open pergola, <br /> although not an enclosed addition, is structure and does add to the bulk and massing. Staff finds that the <br /> additions could be redesigned to step back to the required 50-foot setback and that there is no hardship for <br /> the encroachment of the pergola. <br /> Plamiing Staff recomrnends denial of the front yard setback variances and reconunends that the additions <br /> be redesigned to meet the 50-foot front yard setback. <br /> Mason distributed photographs of the property to the Planning Commission.Mason stated they do meet <br /> all the conditions of Staff's report except for the front yard setback,which Staff aclmowledges that there <br /> may be a hardship inherent to the land because the property was platted prior to the current zoning <br /> regulations. Mason stated it is also her understanding that Staff finds that there may be a hardship due to <br /> the existing slant of the house on the property. <br /> Mason indicated the addition versus the existing structure would be a difference of.5 feet from the fi•ont <br /> yard setback. Mason stated in order to keep within the current foundation footprint, the applicant is <br /> requesting a six-inch variance based on prior zoning. The proposal has a minimal impact on the property <br /> and the character of the iieighborhood and that they feel the scope of the project is in keeping with the <br /> spirit and intent of the rules. <br /> There were no public coinments relating to this application. <br /> Ralm inquired whether the front entry roof is a legal encroachment. <br /> Gaffron stated the Ciiy's code does not have an allowance for a front entry roof, which means that it is an <br /> encroachment. <br /> Mason stated the siructure is more like a trellis and is a detached struchire. Mason stated they view it as <br /> more of a landscape feature and that the pergola would not have any footings. Mason stated the t7•ellis <br /> would help to define the entry to the resideiice. <br /> PAGE 19 <br />