Laserfiche WebLink
NIIN[JTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> • Monday,May 16,2011 <br /> . . 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit moved,Schwingler seconded,to bring the recommendations of the Planning <br /> Commission regarding community/donation gardens and private,residential gardens on a vacant <br /> lot forward to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> 4. 11-3505 THOMAS McCUNE, 1473 BAY RIDGE ROAD,VARIANCE, 8:10 P.M.to 8:16 <br /> P.M. <br /> . Thomas McCune,Applicant,was present. <br /> Curtis stated the applicant is requesting variances from the 30-foot side yard setback requirement in order <br /> to construct a new roof on the existing home 2'/11" taller than existing. The pitch of the roof would be <br /> ' increased. A 16.7 foot setback exists on the south side of the home and a 14-foot setback exists on the <br /> north side of the home where 30 feet is required. <br /> In conjunction with repairing an ice dame issue with the existing roof,the property owner would like to <br /> reconstruct the roof over the older portion of their home with a slightly steeper pitch. The resulting . - <br /> increase in height would be an additional2'/11" from the existing roof. The existing home does not meet <br /> � the 30-foot side setback as required for principal structures within the LR-lA zoning district. Technically <br /> the increased roof height in the substandard setback is considered an expansion of an existing <br /> nonconformity. No additional side yard setback variances are required in order to do the project as <br /> proposed. ' <br /> As the Planning Commission is aware,there have been multiple changes to law regarding how a <br /> municipality must review an application for a variance. The"undue hardship" analysis has been replaced <br /> with the "practical difficulties" analysis. Staff is currently worldng on updating the ordinance to ensure <br /> that it conforms to the statutory analysis of practical difficulties. While the current code directs Staff, <br /> Planning Commission and the Council to perform a hardship analysis,this application will actually be <br /> viewed consistent with the new practical difficulties analysis. <br /> The applicants'variance request is reasonable and necessary in order to avoid additional damage to their <br /> property caused by ice dams. The proposed addition is a vertical expansion that will result in minimal <br /> additional massing of the house. No additional living space is being proposed and the applicants'request <br /> . results in minimal negative impact of adjacent properties. Staff finds the location of the.existing home <br /> creates a unique circumstance not created by the applicants and that granting the applicants'request is in <br /> harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinances and will not alter the essential character of the <br /> neighborhood. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variances in order to reconstruct the roof as <br /> proposed. <br /> Alexander stated in her view the request is reasonable, • <br /> Levang, Schwingler, and Leskinen agreed with Commissioner Alexander. <br /> Tom McCune stated the house is a 1,700 square foot rambler with no venta.ble attic space and very little <br /> insulation. All the builders he has spoken to have said that he needs to ventilate it and put more insulation <br /> in there along with a steeper pitch. McCune indicated he does not want to encroach on the property line. <br /> Page <br /> � 18 <br />