The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVariance application info . ^ � #04-3044 August 16,2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Application Received: 7-21-04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7-21-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9-19-04 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Date: August 11, 2004 Subject: #04-3044, Jennifer A. Simon, 3925 Cherry Avenue -Rear Yard Setback Variance -Public Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoning District: LR— 1 C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/z acre min.) Lot Area: 0.39 acres (17,195 s.£) Lot Width: 119.80 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests 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. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application as the addition can be shifted 10 feet east in order to meet the 30 foot required setback. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area(acre) Lot Width(feet) Front Yard(feet) Side Yard(feet) Rear Yard(feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street(feet) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 List of Exhibits Exhibit A—Applications Exhibit B —Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C—Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form Exhibit D— Survey of Existing Conditions Exhibit E—Proposed Survey Exhibit F—Proposed Survey w/Topography Exhibit G—Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit H—Existing and Proposed Elevations Exhibit I—Existing and Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit J—Existing and Proposed Cross-Sections Exhibit K—Existing and Proposed Roof Lines � ' � #04-3044 August 16,2004 Page 2 of 4 Exhibit L—Photographs Exhibit M—Aerial Photograph Exhibit N—Property Owner's List Exhibit O—Plat Map Background The applicant's representative met with staff to discuss the proposed improvements to the property. It was determined at that time that the applicant would require a rear yard setback variance in order to construct an addition to the existing house. This was a direct result of misinterpretation of what frontage was considered the front. By Code definition, on a corner lot the lot boundary with the shortest street frontage is designated as the front line for zoning purposes. Although a substantial amount of improvements are proposed, staff has determined that because much of what is existing will remain, the project would not be considered a rebuild. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width LR— 1C Lot Area Lot Width � Required 21,780 s.£ ('/z acre) Actual 17,195 s.£ (0.39 acres) 119.80' Setbacks LR— 1C Required Existing Proposed Front (Minnie Ave) 30' 84' 62' Rear (west) 30' 15' 20' Left Side (south) 10' 62' 43' Right Side (Cherry 15' 21' 16.5' Ave) Structural Covera e Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 17,195 s.£ (0.39 acres) Allowed: 2,579.25 s.£ (15%) Proposed: 2,262 s.£ (13.2%) � � #04-3044 August 16,2004 Page 3 of 4 Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 75 —250 17,135 s.£ 4,284 s.£ 3,362 s.£ 3,622 s.f. (25%) (20%) (21%) 250—500 60 s.£ 18 s.£ 0 s.£* 0 s.f. (30%) (0%) (0%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rear Yard Setback Variance The applicant has proposed to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang located in the rear yard. Included for removal are the rock on plastic in the rear yard, some wood rail-road tie retaining walls, pavers, planter areas and some concrete patio areas on the north and south side of the home. The existing 1.7' x 5.7' encroachment is a chimney shaft that will remain and is an allowed encroachment. The applicant is proposing to add a garage and master suite addition to the east side of the home and a covered entry on the north side, all meeting the required setbacks. The applicant is also proposing to construct a kitchen addition to the south side of the home in line with the current house. This requires a rear yard setback variance because the lot line jogs to the east 10'. The applicant is also proposing a deck to the east of the kitchen addition, which will meet all setback requirements. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardshi Anal sis In considering applications far variance, the Planning Commission shal!consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,safety and welfare of the community,existing and anticipated traffrc conditions, light and air,danger of fire,risk to the public sajety,and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances froriz the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict en.forcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the inciividual properry under consideration, antl shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keepinQ with t{ie spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there are hardships inherent to the land. For example, the jogged rear property line and the sloping topography, all somewhat restricting the applicant from meeting the required 30' rear yard setback. Further, the Zoning Ordinance defines the front on corner lots as the shortest frontage. In this case that being Minnie Avenue even through the applicant's front door faces Cherry Avenue and the property has a Cherry Avenue address. If Cherry Avenue were considered the front only a 10' setback to the west would be required, allowing the applicant to proceed without variances. Adding to all mentioned above is the layout of the existing home and what best fits within that envelope. • #04-3044 August 16,2004 Page 4 of 4 However, hardship also references "reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls"; this being the 30' required rear yard setback. It is staff's opinion that the property owner has reasonable use, especially since the addition can be achieved within the 30' rear yard setback, recognizing the layout of the existing and proposed improvements will not fit together as well or grading may be required. The hardships mentioned above may hold more validity if the applicant had no other options for placement of the proposed addition, bearing in mind that the layout of the existing house is not considered a valid hardship as it isn't something inherent to the land. Issues for Consideration 1. Are the hardships mentioned valid enough to grant variance approval, even though the applicant could meet the 30' required setback if grading were done and the interior spaces were re-designed? 2. Does the sloping topography, by itself, offer a valid hardship? Or, could the grading necessary to meet the 30' setback be minor enough to require it? 3. Should it be relevant that the jogged rear property line was caused by separate acquisition of the east 10 feet of the neighboring lot (the most western 10' in the rear yard was not a part of the original platted lots)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Denial of the requested variance as the addition could be moved 10' to the east in order to meet the 30' rear yard setback. Approval of the requested variance only if you find that the sloping topography alone constitutes a hardship restricting the applicant from moving the addition 10' to the east in order to meet the required rear yard setback.