09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Angus! 16, 2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. («MM-3044 Jennifer Simon, Continued) Kempf stated in his opinion the biggest issue is that Chcn>’ is not the front of the lot, and that if Cherry were the front of the lot, then the side yard setback would be 10 feet. Kempf staled in his \iew ihc backyard is functionally a back yard and what the applicant is calling the side of the house is functionally a side yard. Kempf stated he cannot see imposing the City's definition for front yanlside yard on this application. Fntzler inquired whether the applicant was unable to locate the addition because of conditions due to the land. Fntzler slated the location of an e.xisting window diKS not constitute a hardship and is a design issue. Simon concurred that it is a design issue, but reiterated they were unaw are of the side yard setback until they were well into this project. Simon stated the entire project would have to be redesigned if Ihc vananccs arc not granted and that she has considerable expense already into the project. Simon commented she may liavc to forego the project if the variances are not approved. Fntzler indicated he tends to agree with Staffs recommendation. Rahn staled he also is in agreement w ith Staff s recommendation, and explained that there is some rationale for determining a comer lot. Rahn stated the longer setbacks arc on the front and rear of the property and narrower on the sides, so it would make sense to have your larger sctba<-ks go w uh the length of the lot. Simon stated she is limited in what she can do w ith the house given the location of it on tlw lot Rahn noted the lot is somewhat nectangular. Simon noted she is also reducing the amount of hardcover by removing the patio and porch, w hich makes the lot well over its hardcover limit. Simon stated this addition would actually bring the lot more into compliance with the hardcover requirements. Rahn commented m his view the addition could be relocated 10 feet over, but that it would be up to the applicant to decide whether she wants to move the addition. Gumllach stated even if Cherry were considered the front, a vanance would still be required to do the covered entryway and the tuck*under garage addition. Gundlach stated the existing house docs not meet the 30 foot required setback if Cherry is considered the front. Simon commented m her view the side of the house w iih the covered entryway is the front of the house. Gundlach explained the City ’s code considers Minnie .Avenue the front because it is the shortest length. Simon stated in her opinion a v'anance would be required no matter where she builds onto the house given the fact that the house was originally constructed in the comer of the lot. PAGE 14