08/16/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. #8. #04-3044 JENNIFER SIMON,3925 CHERRY AVENUE—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-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, and consists of .39 acres or 17,195 square feet. The addition would be approximately 21.5' by 16'with a deck 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 hardships 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 used under the conditions allowed by the official controls." Gundlach explained the official controls would be the 30 foot required rear yard 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 does not meet the hardship criteria. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds that the sloping topography alone constitutes a hardship and would not allow the applicant to relocate the addition to meet the setback,then approval should be granted based upon a hardship. Gundlach noted the adjacent neighbor did call this afternoon 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 stated 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. Simon 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 corner lot and a wider setback is required. Simon stated they did attempt to slide the addition over but in her opinion it does not look very well. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kempf stated he did notice that the adjoining neighbor would not have any problems with the house being located closer to the 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 would locate the addition in front of a rear bathroom. PAGE 13