Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� <br /> Monday,June 18,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Mr. Schumer was told the City was in the process of changing the law and that tabling the application <br /> makes the most sense. <br /> Levang indicated she is not in favor of tabling the application and that the Planning Commission vote on . <br /> the application tonight. Levang stated the City Council could then either approve or deny the application. <br /> Thiesse stated if they table the application, it will come back before the Planning Commission. <br /> Walsh noted the new hardcover ordinance will be before the City Council on July 9`�'. <br /> Thiesse stated if the City adopts the new ordinance,Mr. Schumer will almost be in compliance. Thiesse <br /> indicated he would prefer just to table it and review it under the new ordinance. <br /> Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application#12-3557,Russell Schumer,955 , <br /> Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Aye 5,Nays 1,Levang Opposed. <br /> 6. #12-3558 MARK DUENOW, 1525 MINNIE AVENUE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, <br /> 9:13 P.M.-9:23 P.M. <br /> Mark Duenow,Applicant,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact side setback variance for construction of an . <br /> enclosed porch located seven feet from the side lot line where a 10-foot side setback is required. The <br /> applicant recently constructed an enclosed porch above a pre-existing deck that was located seven feet <br /> from the side lot line, in line with the house also at that setback. The required side setback for a structure <br /> such as this in the LR-1C District is 10 feet. The pre-existing deck was at the main floor level and would <br /> have been allowed as close as two feet from the side lot line per Code Section 78-1405(3). Enclosure of <br /> the conforming deck to make it into a porch requires that the porch meet the 10-foot setback. <br /> The pre-existing deck was built in 2001 by the prior owner. At that time there was some question about <br /> whether it met the 10-foot setback requirement and it was later determined to be low enough to be <br /> considered as a nonencroachment. The current owner recently built walls and a rood to enclose a portion <br /> ' of the deck, including that portion less than 10 feet from the side lot line. That enclosure must meet the <br /> 10-foot setback. � <br /> The applicant was offered the options of removing the enclosed porch entirely or submitting plans for a <br /> permit to modify the structure to meet code. The applicant has chosen neither option but has requested a� <br /> variance to keep the structure. <br /> The applicant notes that the porch continues in line with the side wall of the existing hose and will not <br /> encroach any nearer the lot line than the existing house. �Had he applied for a building permit prior to <br /> construction,he would have been advised of this nonconformity and could have reviewed his plans <br /> accordingly or applied for a variance prior to construction. <br /> Addition of a screen porch to this very small house is not an unreasonable request. The fact that the <br /> existing house is closer to the side lot line than the Code allows is a practical difficulty. The e�cisting jog <br /> along the back wall of the house would act to limit the width of a conforming screen porch extension to <br /> approximately seven�eet. Further,the applicant is correct in noting that the existing roofline of the house <br /> Page <br /> 23 <br />