07-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. JUNE 21. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (7. H04-302S Darrell E. and Karin II. Anderson, 925 Old Long l ake Road, Variance. Public Hearing - continued) of their lot, as compared to the lot depth, and that the proposed house is the most cfTicicnl use of the property. Curtis Slated staff found, with respect to maintaining the nonconforming west side setback and creating a nonconforming cast side setback and a nonconforming front setback, there is no hardship to support these variances. A reasonable home can be configured to best maximize the allowed buildable area, fhe allowed buildable area is 40'x 410*. Additionally, staff felt that as the applicants are rebuilding their home, there is no hardship to allow the three nonconforming acccssor>- buildings to remain in their nonconforming locations. Darrell .Anderson, applicant, explained the front yard \anance desenbed in the stalTreport, which they received only two da>-s ago. w as a surpnsc to them as it had not come up at the pre-application review meeting with staff He indicated that it could be dealt with through re-design. He presented a brief family history of the property, noting that they now are comerting from rental property to the house becoming their pnvate residence. Chair .Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none. Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commissioners. Rahn asked for confimiation of the lot width; Mr. Anderson replied it was 99 5' wide with a proposed building width of 40*. Mr. Anderson explained they intended to re-use the fireplace and chimney, retain the basemen! well and retain the graxity-fiow sewer connection He emphasized the house orientaiion had to be parallel to the road due to the cast slope Chair .Mabusth asked if engineering data was leceivcd for the proposed re-use of the existing foundation. Curtis indicated none was recei\ed. Mr. Anderson ad\ ised he was a retired Professional l-nginecr (P E ), though not a stnictural engineer, and pointed »»ut the proposed house would be a single story building over the existing foundation Frit/ler commented that w iih a long, narrow lot and existing building pad. all new construction has to fit within the existing budding footprint, and that be was not in favor of come beyond the existine fiKMpnnt ^ / b Kempf concurred 'vith Fntzler. However, he asked the applicants if they had considered new construction that would orient tow ards the adjacent MnDNR open space Mr. .-\nderson responded that such orientation would allow for no backyard space, would require a new drveway with more hardcover As the house is now oriented, they have the benefit of a nice backyard. Chair .Mabusth indi'-atcd that she had a difficult time accepting a side setback of 7.9’ where 30’ is r,.quiicd. Mr. Anderson responded that a fencing placement error years ago tesulicd in the creating of the 8 ’side yard, but that they view ed it having no negative neighborhood impact, in fact, it w ould be a positive impact returning the home to a pnvate residence with an improved structure. Pagel3ci'22