09-20-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING CO>HVnSSION MEETING Moiday, 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.in. (M04>3044 JcHRifcr Simoa, coBtiaiicd) Leshe inquired how the topography of this lot could be used as a hardship. Gundlach stated when she reviewed the application, it appeared possible to relocate the addition 10 feet to the east. Gundlach stated a hardship inherent to the land that would prevent the addition from being relocated could be the topography of the lot, but that in her opinion the lot slopes very gradually and would allow for relocation of the addition. Gundlach noted she is unaware of the air.ount of grading that would be neeessary if the addition were relocated and whether that would constitute a hardship. Leslie commented the fact that it might cost more to relocate the addition or is not architecturally pleasing docs not constitute a hardship. Kempf inquired whether the ordinance that defines w hat the front and back yard of a lot is written in stone and if it is reviewed in every situation. Rahn stated since it is a city ordinance, it would require a variance to deviate from it. Gaffron stated it is in the definition section of the ordinance where it defines on a corner lot what the front yard is and what the side yard is. Gaffron stated the short side of a comer lot is the front according to the de. nition. Kcnipf inquired whether a variance could be applied for to make Cherry the front of the lot Gaffron stated he is unaware of any application during his tenure that specifically requested a redefinition of the ordinance. Gaffron stated the opportunity to define a front yard and a side yard exists when someone reque.sts a new subdivision, but to his recollection he is not aware of any s'ariances to the ordinance in a situation similar to this. Leslie concurred that functionally the front of the house is located on Cherry. Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would grant the variances if the front of the lot were ctmsidered Cherry'. Leslie stated in his view the proposed addition could then be shifled back but does nut really sotw anyihing. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission is interested in looking at making Cherry the front, the code may need to be amended rather than a vanance granted. Bremer inquired w hetha the applicant is even mterested in looking at redesigning her plans if Cherry would be considered the front of the property. Bremer suted the addition would merely be on a different side of the house. Simon stated her goals in this project are to add onto the house in a wny that the house docs not appear to be piccc-mcalcd .nd to increase the amount of living space. Simon suted her in view redesigning PAGE IS