09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Augnst 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. <<8. 0O4-3O44 JENNIFER SIMON. 3925 CHERRY A\TM*E - VARIANCE (7:05 - 7:27 p.m.) Jennifer Simon, Applicant, was present Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence where the proposed setback is 20 feet from the rear property boundary when 30 feet IS normally required and the existing house encroaches approximately 15 feet into the setback The property is located in the LR-IC. One Family Lakeshore Residential District, and consists of .39 acres or 17.195 square feet. 'Die addition would be approximately 21.5’ by I6‘with adeck adjacent to it. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang located in the rear yard. Staff finds that there are hard hips inherent to the land, specifically the jogged rear property lot and the sloping topography, that somewhat restrict the applicant from meeting the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Gundlach stated the hardship analysis also references "reasonable use if u.sed under the conditions allowed by the official coiv-ols.” Gundlach explained the official controls would be tlic 30 fool required rear y-ard setback and the City’s Zoning Code. Staff feels the applicant can shift the addition 10 feet to the east in order to meet that 30 foot setback and therefore docs not meet the hardship criteria. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds that tlic sloping topography alone constitutes a hardship and would not allow the applicant to rcliKate the addition to meet the setback, then approval should be granted based upon a hard.ship. Gundlach noted the adjacent neighbor did call this afiemoon and stated she has no objections to the addition. Simon requested an explanation be given regarding the sloping. Gundlach stated she took a city topography map and examined the slope of the land. Gundlach explained if the Planning Commission does find the property slopes down enough to prevent the addition from being relocated, then that would constitute a hardship. Simon staled she has attempted to redesign the addition but was unable to do so because the addition would then be located in front of a window and the upstairs would not flow properly. Sin..*n explained they were far into the process before the architect became aware that they would have to comply with the side yard setback. Simon noted this is a comer lot and a w ider setback is required. Simon staled they did attempt to slide the addition over but in her opinion it does not look very well. 'Hierc were no public comments regarding this application Kempf stated he did notice that the adjoining neighbor would not have any problems w ith the house being loca’c J closer to ‘he lot line given the distance, dense undergrowth and mature trees Kempf commented he did also try to visualize the addition in another location but saw the problem with a design that w ould locate the addition in front of a rear bailaoom. PACE 13