Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETFNG <br />Monday, February 28, 2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(9. ms-3081 ZB CONSTRUCTION, INC, 26xx KELLEY PARKWA Y (OUTLOTE, <br />STONEBA Y), Conliiiued) <br />adoption at the March 14'^ City Councii meeting reflecting one elevator, 83% indoor parking, <br />and additionai iandscaping around the parking area for the Stonebay lofbi, 2670 Kelley <br />Parkway. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />*10. #05-308.3 CITY OF ORONO - CMP AMENDMENT - PRELIMINARY APPROVAL <br />Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to conditionally approve 2000-2020 Comprehensive <br />Plan Amendment #3 adding certain properties along Myrticwood Road and 25 South Brown <br />Road to the defined Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) subject to review and <br />comment by the Metropolitan Council, and direct staff to submit the amendment to the <br />Metropolitan Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />11. #05-3084 JAMES AND PATRICIA OLSON, 4360 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCE - <br />RESOLUTION NO. 5288 <br />Gundlach stated that the applicants were requesting a front yard setback variance to permit a front <br />yard setback of 72 ’ when 77’ currently exists and 100 ’ is nonnally required in order to construct an <br />attached 2-stall garage adjacent to the existing single stall garage. She indicated that staff would <br />recommend denial of the request as submitted; however, staff would recommend approval of a <br />front yard setback variance of 77’ which would not increase the existing non-confonning front yard <br />setback. <br />James Olson read from his prepared statement that it was their intent to increase the curb appeal of <br />their home, maximize space, and minimize impacts on views with their design. lie urged the <br />Council to support their request, since they own a 3.5 acre property in the 5 acre zone. Olson <br />pointed out that the 72 ’ setback would not impact any views for him or his neighbors and that they <br />had provided written acknowledgement of their support and indicated their surprise that he needed <br />variance approval at all. <br />Sansevere asked what staffs objection to the 72 ’ was. <br />Gaffron stated that the applicant would be increasing a non-conformancy. <br />Mayor Peterson noted that the current layout of the home would be diamatically impacted if the <br />applicant were forced to .satisfy code. <br />Olson stated that, due to the angle of the home on the site, it is not easy to reposition the addition <br />without further encroaching on setbacks, the septic site, or adversely impacting existing trees. In <br />addition, repositioning the garage addition would impact views from the back of the house and <br />deck. <br />White stated that the planning commission had a difficult time coming up with a hard.ship after a <br />great deal of discussion. <br />PAGE 7 rf to <br />I