Laserfiche WebLink
[ <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3798, <br /> Michael and Holly Rucinski,3188 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance subject to Staff s <br /> recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 5. #16-3799 INTEGRITY REMODELING & DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF <br /> MATTHEW AND JAMIE HANSON,2060 SPATES AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:00 P.M.—7:30 <br /> P.M. <br /> Rick Topalof, Integrity Remodeling, was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting front/street and side setback variances in order to construct a <br /> covered open porch on an existing nonconforming accessory building located nearer the street than the <br /> principal residence structure. The proposal also requires variances for individual and total accessory <br /> structure footprint areas since the addition converts the building's status to that of an oversize accessory <br /> structure. <br /> The addition to the building expands its footprint to approximately 47' x 27' or 1,262 square feet, making <br /> it an oversized accessory structure. Under Zoning Code Section 78-1434 regarding accessory structure <br /> footprint area, and since no oversize accessory structures are allowed on lots less than 2.0 acres,the <br /> building will require a variance as it will exceed 1,000 square feet for this 1.3 acre lot. That section also <br /> limits the property to no more than 2,000 square feet of total accessory structures. Because there is an <br /> additional existing 819 square foot detached garage on the property, the added covered deck will bring the <br /> total accessory structure square footage for the property to 2,081 square feet, requiring an additional <br /> variance. <br /> Gaffron stated it is uncommon that the City would approve variances to create an oversize accessory <br /> structure by expanding an existing accessory structure, especially when the existing building is <br /> nonconforming in location and the lot is substandard in size. The existing structure comes nowhere near <br /> meeting the principal structure setbacks required for an oversized accessory structure and its proposed <br /> footprint would require a lot of at least three acres in area. <br /> The existing accessory building was administratively approved for installation of a toilet and sink in 2010 <br /> and the owners executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building. An aspect of that <br /> approval was installation of a sewage ejector system directly behind the building which pumps to the <br /> house sewer system. The ejector tank was required to be located ten feet from the back of the building. <br /> However, the proposed covered porch encroaches over an edge of that tank, potentially making future <br /> maintenance of the ejector system more difficult. If the addition is constructed,the property owner <br /> should be required to relocate the tank to meet the required 10-foot setback. <br /> Gaffron stated this lot is technically a through lot because it has frontage on Spates Avenue and backs up <br /> to undeveloped Grand Avenue, requiring accessory structures to meet principal structure setbacks. In <br /> addition, the addition constitutes expansion of a non-conforming structure and does not meet the zoning <br /> code criteria for such an expansion. <br /> If the Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are <br /> justified, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. If the Planning Commission finds that the <br /> practical difficulties test is not met, a recommendation for denial, or tabling for revisions, may be <br /> appropriate. <br /> Page 6 of 30 <br />