07-16-2012 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

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