Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> • FILE#12-3558 <br /> June 14,2012 <br /> Page 3 of 3 <br /> Practical Difficulties Analysis <br /> In considering applications for variance, the P/anning Commission shall consider the effect of <br /> the proposed variance upon the hea/th, safety and welfare of the community, existing and <br /> anticipated tra�c conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the <br /> effect on va/ues of property in the surrounding area. The P/anning Commission shall consider <br /> recommending approva/ for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in <br /> instances where their strid enforcement would cause practica/ di�culties because of <br /> circumstances unigue to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend <br /> approva/on/y when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and <br /> intent of the Orono Zoning Code. <br /> Applicant notes that the porch continues in line with the side wall of the existing house and will <br /> not encroach any nearer the lot line than the existing house. Had he applied for a building <br /> permit prior to construction, he would have been advised of this nonconformity and could have <br /> revised his plans 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 <br /> the existing house is closer to the side lot line than the Code allows is a practical difficulty. The <br /> existing jog along the back wall of the house would act to limit the width of a conforming screen <br /> porch extension to approximately 7 feet. Further, applicant is correct in noting that the existing <br /> roofline of the house would make it difficult or impossible to maintain reasonable headroom in <br /> an enclosed porch if it had to be moved further north. <br /> The addition does not appear to limit the light, air and open space enjoyed by the adjacent <br /> property. The house to the immediate south is approximately 50 feet from applicants' side lot <br /> line. The applicants' request results in minimal negative impact to adjacent properties. Staff <br /> finds the location of the existing home and the size of the property creates a unique <br /> circumstance not created by the applicants and that granting the applicants' request is in <br /> harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and will not alter the essential character <br /> of the neighborhood. <br /> Structural Covera�e: <br /> The proposal will result in structural coverage totaling 919 s.f.which is significantly less than the <br /> � 1500 s.f.of structural coverage that would be allowed on this small lot. � <br /> Hardcover Calculations: <br /> The proposal constitutes an increase in hardcover resulting in the property being just under the <br /> 30%limit for the 250-500'zone in which the property is located. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Staff Recommendation � ��` <br /> If Planning Commission determines that sufficient practical difficulty exists to support approval <br /> of the porch structure as it currently exists, then a recommendation for approval of the side <br /> yard setback variance may be appropriate.A recommendation for approval should be subject to <br /> applicant obtaining an after-the-fact building permit for the porch as well as the deck extension, <br /> and subject to making any changes necessary to bring the existing construction into code <br /> compliance as may be directed by the Building Official. <br />